How is an active court case of what WotC asserts is someone attempting to use the name of one of their properties as a vehicle for hate speech a hypothetical? Being neither a civil judge nor civil lawyer, I cannot speak to the merits of either sides specific arguments in the case, but are you really going to tell me that the attempt is not at the very least an iceberg sighting, if not an outright shot across the bow when it comes to bad actors and WotC properties?
Probably because there are no similar examples that involve the OGL, making abuse of the OGL in a similar manner entirely hypothetical.
As of now, the idea that the OGL itself is somehow vulnerable to this is entirely hypothetical. It's not a justification for deauthorizing 1.0a.
You've never opened a copy of any of these games, have you? The rules might be those of D&D or some variation of them. But none of the explanatory text is simply copied.
It was made very clear that I wasn't talking about just any other game system but games that use the rules of D&D or some variation of them.
It is utterly laughable that you accused me of playing semantic games. That is what you keep doing here because you have made up your mind about something about which you know very little and just keep backtracking and backpedaling and backing into the next wall.
Bloody heck, I took that as 'the mechanics might be....'
Look, you'll believe what you want to believe anyway, including whatever you want of me. Live well, true believer.
"In tabletop games and video games, game mechanics are the rules ... "
Oh, believe me. I will believe what I want. See below for another example of how I arrived at doing so ↓
Elsewhere you are playing semantic games and pretending someone said Wizards want to create a monopoly over the entire roleplaying game industry, rattling off as you did other game systems, when he said they want to create a monopoly over the game, meaning D&D. What's next? Are you going to now launch into some silly sermon about how monopolies can only ever be at the level of an industry as you backtrack and backpedal and back into the next wall?
And McDonald's wants to have a monopoly over McDonald's franchise restaurants. And they do. Does that make them some sort of evil megalomaniacs?
WotC doesn't own the game. They own their copyright protected flavour (i.e. lore) published in their books, etc., and also their trademarks (e.g. the name D&D). The game itself is the mechanics and how players use them, which no one owns. There really is no perfect analogy with McDonald's, but a much closer one would be them seeking to claim ownership over all food made with the same recipes that they use.
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
It's not at all similar. And as far as fearmongering in connection to 6f goes, the worst of it is yours:
FUN FACT #1: Any publisher can publish any game product and say it is compatible with any edition of D&D. They just can't name D&D. They can say things like "compatible with the world's most famous classic fantasy adventure game" or whatever. This is what all those other publishers do.
FUN FACT #2: Any publisher can use the rules as they are not copyrightable. Wizards doesn't own the core mechanics just because they paid for the name and others can't use what is a rather small list of selected spell names and selected monster names and terms specific to D&D-original campaign settings.
What this means is all this talk of Ernie Gygax and his dumb racist game is a distraction. Going on and on about hateful content to exploit the however well-intentioned feelings of others is manipulative at best.That is what Wizards are doing. Because they know it works. That is what many in this thread are doing. Because they either know it works or they don't quite understand what Wizards own and what others can do with the game.
How would any change to the existing OGL stop what Wizards claim they are trying to stop?
Has anyone ever told you your fun facts aren’t very fun?
But, seriously, let me break this down for you. A license is a tacit endorsement by the parent company of any work produced under it. Thus, under 1.0a, a person can write up any dreck they want, claim the license, and the media can then accurately report “Officially Licensed D&D Product Supports [insert hate content here]”, and that material is now permanently tied to the brand in a very real legal sense, and WotC cannot take any action to actively oppose it. That is what 6f seeks to counter. Yes, someone can still create a “compatible product”, but there is no direct official connection between the two like there is under 1.0a.
Anyone ever told you how transparent you are?
I am not being facetious when I say I am beginning to wonder whether those still siding with Wizards know what Wizards are doing is wrong but just can't admit that they were.
In another thread, you were complaining about "people brandishing hypotheticals."
It is hypotheticals that have everyone in a mad rush to defend 6f.
If you're so scared of the sheer possibility that some racist twit will make some dumb racist game using the OGL, and that this is somehow going to bring Wizards into ill repute and threaten to topple them and your chances to enjoy their version of the game, then you've an overactive imagination and less nerve than even the fifth and sixth graders I teach.
No, I think it’s Ernest Gygax’s attempt to use a different WotC product as a vehicle for hate speech that has brought attention to the issue
No, he used the TSR trademark which had expired. Nothing to do with Wizards or the OGL.
Whether or not the trademark lapsed appears to be a point of contention, and it is or possibly was for a WotC property. Do I really need to spell out why that would make them get proactive with other properties?
Edit: To elaborate, WotC purchased the old TSR years ago, which means they own any properties held by that company at that time. The TSR name itself was allowed to lapse, which is why we now have NuTSR. The state of the contested property is murkier than I’m qualified to speak to with certainty, but WotC was the last one to hold it and is asserting they still have the rights. So yes, what happens with the property is very much their concern.
And it's handled by Trademark Law, nothing to do with the OGL. AND not a single Star Frontiers New Genesis book has been sold. If it does somehow get published, its print run would be what? a few thousand? And nobody would blame WoTC. Meanwhile, you can download Mein Kamf for $3.49.
You guys who want WoTC to be the moral vigilantes of the gaming world need to rethink things. I mean, WoTC President and CEO Cynthia Williams worked for Philip Morris for 12 years as a financial executive back when they were being investigated for targeting minors for cigarette sales and lost in court.
It's not at all similar. And as far as fearmongering in connection to 6f goes, the worst of it is yours:
FUN FACT #1: Any publisher can publish any game product and say it is compatible with any edition of D&D. They just can't name D&D. They can say things like "compatible with the world's most famous classic fantasy adventure game" or whatever. This is what all those other publishers do.
FUN FACT #2: Any publisher can use the rules as they are not copyrightable. Wizards doesn't own the core mechanics just because they paid for the name and others can't use what is a rather small list of selected spell names and selected monster names and terms specific to D&D-original campaign settings.
What this means is all this talk of Ernie Gygax and his dumb racist game is a distraction. Going on and on about hateful content to exploit the however well-intentioned feelings of others is manipulative at best.That is what Wizards are doing. Because they know it works. That is what many in this thread are doing. Because they either know it works or they don't quite understand what Wizards own and what others can do with the game.
How would any change to the existing OGL stop what Wizards claim they are trying to stop?
Has anyone ever told you your fun facts aren’t very fun?
But, seriously, let me break this down for you. A license is a tacit endorsement by the parent company of any work produced under it. Thus, under 1.0a, a person can write up any dreck they want, claim the license, and the media can then accurately report “Officially Licensed D&D Product Supports [insert hate content here]”, and that material is now permanently tied to the brand in a very real legal sense, and WotC cannot take any action to actively oppose it. That is what 6f seeks to counter. Yes, someone can still create a “compatible product”, but there is no direct official connection between the two like there is under 1.0a.
Anyone ever told you how transparent you are?
I am not being facetious when I say I am beginning to wonder whether those still siding with Wizards know what Wizards are doing is wrong but just can't admit that they were.
In another thread, you were complaining about "people brandishing hypotheticals."
It is hypotheticals that have everyone in a mad rush to defend 6f.
If you're so scared of the sheer possibility that some racist twit will make some dumb racist game using the OGL, and that this is somehow going to bring Wizards into ill repute and threaten to topple them and your chances to enjoy their version of the game, then you've an overactive imagination and less nerve than even the fifth and sixth graders I teach.
No, I think it’s Ernest Gygax’s attempt to use a different WotC product as a vehicle for hate speech that has brought attention to the issue
No, he used the TSR trademark which had expired. Nothing to do with Wizards or the OGL.
Whether or not the trademark lapsed appears to be a point of contention, and it is or possibly was for a WotC property. Do I really need to spell out why that would make them get proactive with other properties?
Edit: To elaborate, WotC purchased the old TSR years ago, which means they own any properties held by that company at that time. The TSR name itself was allowed to lapse, which is why we now have NuTSR. The state of the contested property is murkier than I’m qualified to speak to with certainty, but WotC was the last one to hold it and is asserting they still have the rights. So yes, what happens with the property is very much their concern.
And it's handled by Trademark Law, nothing to do with the OGL. AND not a single Star Frontiers New Genesis book has been sold. If it does somehow get published, its print run would be what? a few thousand? And nobody would blame WoTC. Meanwhile, you can download Mein Kamf for $3.49.
You guys who want WoTC to be the moral vigilantes of the gaming world need to rethink things. I mean, WoTC President and CEO Cynthia Williams worked for Philip Morris for 12 years as a financial executive back when they were being investigated for targeting minors for cigarette sales and lost in court.
It is not about vigilantism. WotC believes they own the rights to Star Frontiers, and someone not only attempted to publish their own product under it, but attempted to publish hate speech with it. Is it that hard to grasp why that would make them want to ensure hate speech cannot be published under an official WotC license for Dungeons and Dragons, an infinitely more well known property of theirs?
To start, here is what this thread is not about: It is not about the contents of the alleged draft OGL 1.1.It is not about wild speculation.It is not about unproductive commentary like “Wizards is doing this because they are evil.”If you want to engage in that or respond to any posts others make about that, there are a dozen or so other threads to choose from.
This thread is about addressing a certain argument that has been raised on those other threads - the proposition that the OGL did not need to change.This proposition is incorrect, as is plainly apparent from actual statements from Wizards and actual facts about recent events and how Wizards operates as a company.
Below, I will spell out the five reasons (presented in no particular order) Wizards has given or heavily implied are their reasons for changing OGL 1.0, all of which follow from this article.There may be other reasons as well, but this is sticking just with actual facts and statements, and the reasonable extrapolation therefrom in light of other tangible facts.
Reason One: NFTs
As Wizards mentioned in the OGL article on this site, one of the reasons they need to update the OGL is to ensure it cannot be used for “third-parties to mint D&D NFTs”
NFTs are, as is widely known, a rather predatory bubble - both predatory in terms of commonly ripping off others’ intellectual property rights and in how they are marketed to folks as a get-rich-quick scheme that is little more than an exploitative bubble.Like most other things that rely on blockchain, they are also an ecological disaster, consuming huge amounts of energy during transactions.As such, there are incredibly obvious reasons Wizards would not want to be associated with these commodities, especially as controlled by third-parties.
The current OGL is silent on NFTs and could allow their creation - which makes sense, when OGL 1.0 was drafted, the idea of an NFT did not exist, except perhaps in parody.Thus, an update to address NFTs is needed to protect both customers and the brand from
Reason Two: Protecting Wizards from racism and other forms of bigotry being published with their branding.
As folks likely know, content published under the OGL must contain various notices of the use of Wizards’ intellectual property.This very easily could result in racist content that is directly tied to Wizards of the Coast - something which both reflects poorly on the game and on the player base itself.Wizards has expressed a desire to change the OGL to better limit hate speech and bigotry published under their brand.
Recent events have put this weakness of the current OGL to the forefront of Wizards’ mind.Ernest Gygax - one of D&D’s founders, son of Gary, and original player of Tenser (which is an anagram for Ernest) - is presently being sued for taking Wizards intellectual property and tarnishing the brand by releasing racist content under that brand name.Specifically, he is trying to publish a new version of Star Frontiers, which Wizards owns and which Wizards still licenses the same of pdfs of old rule books for, with content like “Races in SFNG [Star Frontiers: New Genesis] are not unlike races in the real world. Some are better at certain things than others, and some races are superior than others” (actual quote) and worse.
That lawsuit has exposed an inherent weakness in OGL 1.0 - Star Frontiers has a substantial amount of protection from folks who would illegally use Wizards’ IP for racist purposes, but OGL 1.0 opens up publication of D&D-tied content with similarly horrific language contained within.
Wizards has been lucky so far - they have not had a major figure like Ernest Gygax attempt to abuse OGL 1.0 in this manner.It likely was not even a major concern in their mind when OGL 1.0 was drafted.But the existence of one such instance indicates the possibilities of others, and luck is hardly the shield explicit contractual language would be.Rather than risk another Star Frontiers situation, but this time with content Wizards has freely given the community, updating the OGL to prevent this kind of third-party content is the most sensible course of action.
Reason Three: Data collection.
Wizards has consistently said that sales data is one of their most important assets.For both D&D and Magic, they have talked about how carefully they collect and track product data to know what types of product players like, and determine what settings, themes, and other elements folks enjoy.
When OGL 1.0 was drafted, Wizards likely did not know the extent to which 5e would take off. Many elements in 5e’s success were external - Stranger Things, shows like Critical Role becoming cultural phenomenons, a global pandemic - greatly expanding D&D’s popularity to new heights.
This in turn led to a surge in third party content being created - content Wizards does not necessarily receive sales data on.This unprecedented surge in third-party sales impacts Wizards’ ability to better tune and target their own products as they do not receive the same level of data collection they historically relied upon.The reporting requirements Wizards has stated the new OGL will contain for larger third-party developers are all but certainly designed to help recapture this otherwise lost data.
Reason Four: “Exploitation” (Wizards’ word) of Wizards’ IP by third-parties.
Right now, there is nothing stopping Amazon or any other large company from mass producing mass-scale products rivalling D&D.Recently, Amazon dipped its toes in the D&D business with their publication of Critical Role’s Vox Machina.While Critical Role did an admirable job respecting Wizards’ rights with the show, Amazon is not exactly known for being the most respectful of other people’s products and designs.An updated OGL will prevent someone like Amazon from releasing a product at a scale unprecedented by existing third-party contributors.
Reason Five: Recapturing Lost Revenue.
Almost certainly the most controversial on this list, Wizards is clearly return to recapture revenue from the largest creators (they have said there are only about twenty such creators at the scale for their royalty component to kick in).
D&D is and always has been the largest tabletop RPG - the data saying Pathfinder sold more than D&D 4e is incomplete - it looks only at local game store sales, which are stores frequented by folks already inclined toward gaming.It ignores big box stores, major bookstore chains, and Amazon, all of which are more frequented by folks who are more casual gamers. Casual gamers are going to gravitate toward the name they recognise, and no name in the industry is more recognisable than Dungeons & Dragons.Additionally, the LGS data misses the subscription service D&D Insider, which provided the totality of 4e content online. As such, the LGS sales data misses two major chunks of 4e sales, both of which would put 4e above Pathfinder for the general populations
Why is that relevant?The major third party creators want to make products compatible with D&D - it is better to take a small chunk out of a big pie, than a slightly larger chunk out of a small pie. They have grown to the size they have specifically because they are relying on Wizards’ intellectual property and (more importantly) Wizards’ unrivalled popularity and brand recognition within the industry.
They are successful because of Wizards and the OGL while simultaneously siphoning customers to their products and away from Wizards’, and Wizards wants to reclaim a portion of those lost profits, receiving some compensation for the fact those third-parties would not be as large as they are if they had relied on non-Wizards intellectual property.
Now, there is legitimate reason for controversy on this point - it can be argued that those third parties are providing advertising and increase Wizards’ prestige and encourage folks who might not otherwise buy D&D product to buy official content.That is a legitimate topic of conversation, and one you can bet Wizards is discussing and negotiating with the twenty or so third party sellers at a sufficiently large scale for royalties to kick in. It is not something we on the forums can really discuss, as it would involve complex financial records and data we simply do not have access to.
TL;DR:The world has changed a lot since OGL 1.0, in terms of the game’s popularity, threats which did not exist or were not apparent at the time of OGL 1.0 (NFTs, major content producers creating racist content with Wizards’ intellectual property, ultra-corporations setting their eyes on D&D content), and a rise of third party sales unprecedented by early editions.
OGL 1.0 does not address the realities of the world we live in and needs to be updated.The exact shape of the update is still to be decided—and what form that update should take is one I am sure folks will be debating on other threads up to and beyond the OGL 1.1 release.
(Updated to reflect reasons Wizards stated they are moving away from)
1. I think I can give agreement here. I would have been fine if the old OGL were left alone except to add a prohibition on NFTs. Edit: They would still need to take care here. If they declared other VTT's fog of war as NFT-ish, then they'd receive rightful scorn from the dissenters.
2. They can already address this separately from the OGL. They didn't need 1.1 to do that, they already have these rights and did not need to add to an OGL in order to do so. The OGL does not protect you from harming Wizards in this way and it never will. What wizards is proposing is simply the ability to declare harm without having to show justification in the already provided legal avenues. Not only that but they also make it nigh impossible to challenge their definition of harm AND they have tried to make everyone else sign away the very rights they so want to hold for themselves.
Since you struck through the rest of your points, I'll withhold responding.
There was never a need to make such huge changes to the OGL. had they only stayed with banning NFTs, I doubt very many people would have been offended. If they really care about NFT abuse (they don't, really; it's a smokescreen) then I would praise them for making a 1.0b banning NFTs and making the OGL irrevocable for SRDs currently made available under it.
It is not about vigilantism. WotC believes they own the rights to Star Frontiers, and someone not only attempted to publish their own product under it, but attempted to publish hate speech with it. Is it that hard to grasp why that would make them want to ensure hate speech cannot be published under an official WotC license for Dungeons and Dragons, an infinitely more well known property of theirs?
It's an open license. Part of the concept is that you're giving up control of what can be done with it - it's a risk. But 1.0a does address making sure its hard to associate a "bad" product with DnD. Section 7 says the following -
7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.
Making it clear that unless you meet additional standards, your product is essentially not allowed to associate with WotC or DnD.
You're actually more limited under 1.0a if you're publishing "bad" content than if you publish unlicensed - if you publish unlicensed, you CAN claim compatability with Dungeons and Dragons.
The reputations risk of this scenario is external to the OGL, and the OGL takes steps to reduce it.
1.2 provides no functional additional benefits to WotC in this regard.
That analogy was lame when it was first made. There is no need to repeat as if it were your own or as if it were unfailing it its understanding of the license.
"Lame" is not legal terminology, but you're welcome to try that on a judge if you want.
It also very clearly says you can choose to continue using other versions even if they release a new one.
Other authorized versions, yes.
If they had the ability to de-authorize old versions, that clause would be meaningless. Their own FAQ also implied using old versions was and always would be available.
What's more reasonable - it works as written, and if they wanted to be able to de-authorize old versions they'd have said so? Or... well, nothing really. That is literally the only reasonable explanation, and it also matches what the authors said.
We've been over this item forever. Hasbros attempt to deauthorize is clearly in bad faith and contrary to assurances they gave. End of story, that is fact.
A TTRPG industry in which one company (like Hasbro) can have more dominance in the market; can have more power over third party creators; and can have more control over what's produced is also a TTRPG industry in which marginalized creators will struggle more to be recognized and remunerated for their contributions to the hobby, due to the fact that there will be less opportunities for them to get their creations out there.
A vibrant TTRPG industry full of diverse third party creators is what brings more opportunities like that, and, while the Open RPG Creative License seems to be trying to throw the doors of the industry open, the Open Game License 1.2 appears to be trying to slam the doors of the industry shut.
That makes the whole, "They're doing this for inclusion," line ring especially hollow and makes me especially upset when it's used.
If they had the ability to de-authorize old versions, that clause would be meaningless. Their own FAQ also implied using old versions was and always would be available.
The clause wouldn't be meaningless, it just wouldn't accomplish what you want it to accomplish. The FAQ is not a part of the license. It is evidence of intent, which might well influence the outcome of a lawsuit, but it's not definitive.
Look, if someone challenged the revocation of the 1.0a OGL in court, they might win. They also might lose, and either way the big winner would be the lawyers.
Wow I can't believe that there are actually still WotC stans after all this. Just joining this thread but it's funny how most of the reasons are already crossed out and the two remaining ones are just non-starters.
There's already inherent protections against things like racist and offensive shit hitting the mainstream. For one they need to find a place to actually distribute their product. Your Local Game Store is probably not gonna start selling some random book some racist just walked in with one day so that's off the table. And Online retailers have similar review processes that would get their products taken down long before they hit store shelves. So the best case scenario is that they either sell it directly themselves or go through some retailer that is already willing to sell racist offensive shit. Either way it self-contains that kind of content to very specific corners of the internet where it will wallow in obscurity.
I mean lets be real here, offensive books have existed for decades does anyone really think that people only invented being racist with D&D in the past couple years? This has been a "problem" for decades. Yet its never been a big enough problem to actually matter or even been noticed by the vast majority of the community in that entire time.
And of course the real meat of the issue isn't that WotC is trying to crack down on racist shit. It's that they're doing it in the most draconian way possible. Even if you accept that WotC should update the OGL to address this specifically, surely you must recognize that the way the document is worded is hugely problematic. Why should they be the only and final word on what is considered offensive? Why should the publishers have no ability to contest these decisions in or out of court? What happens if the current or next CEO turns out to be a huge homophobe and suddenly anything depicting non-straight relationships starts getting taken down with no recourse for those publishers? Even in a perfect world where I had any remaining trust in WotC anymore why would I want to publish content for their system in a world where they could take it down at a moments notice for any reason and I would have zero recourse?
And as for NFTs, I mean lets be real nobody needs to stop NFTs cause they're doing a good enough job stopping themselves lol. I mean that shit basically was popular for 1 year and its already dying out as people catch onto the scam. And besides, Cryptobros have a rather "advanced" interpretation of copyright law. If you think that updating the OGL would actually stop anyone who wanted to make NFTs out of D&D shit from doing so, well just because something is less than legal has never stopped them in the past. My point is just that it's an empty gesture. NFTs aren't a serious threat to their brand and will take care of themselves. It's also unclear as to how NFTs would even really apply in this manner. Like the OGL is about making content like maps and subclasses and such for D&D. NFTs are generally either artworks or small bits of code. If someone wanted to make a line of NFTs inspired by D&D this new OGL wouldn't be able to stop them in any way, and if they wanted to make NFTs using actual official D&D artwork, well they wouldn't have needed a new OGL to sue them for that.
But yeah it feels like the person that made this thread just succumbed to the exact thing WotC wants you to believe. None of this is about actually stopping offensive content in any meaningful way. At best its a side effect of trying to quell competition and control the brand with an iron fist. The way these clauses are written is downright awful and gives WotC a massive overreach of power. Even if you honestly believe they have to do this to 'solve' the issue of offensive content in the market, the way they're writing this OGL does a terrible job of it.
If they had the ability to de-authorize old versions, that clause would be meaningless. Their own FAQ also implied using old versions was and always would be available.
The clause wouldn't be meaningless, it just wouldn't accomplish what you want it to accomplish. The FAQ is not a part of the license. It is evidence of intent, which might well influence the outcome of a lawsuit, but it's not definitive.
Look, if someone challenged the revocation of the 1.0a OGL in court, they might win. They also might lose, and either way the big winner would be the lawyers.
Regardless of the outcome in court, Hasbro/WotCs actions are dishonest and reprehensible. The eventually outcome doesn't change the steps they took to cover up their past opinion on the matter (the people relied upon in good faith) or them lieing about the intent of the OGL later.
Whether they end up succeeding or failing in deauthorization, the attempt itself is dishonest and vile.
If they had the ability to de-authorize old versions, that clause would be meaningless. Their own FAQ also implied using old versions was and always would be available.
The clause wouldn't be meaningless, it just wouldn't accomplish what you want it to accomplish. The FAQ is not a part of the license. It is evidence of intent, which might well influence the outcome of a lawsuit, but it's not definitive.
Look, if someone challenged the revocation of the 1.0a OGL in court, they might win. They also might lose, and either way the big winner would be the lawyers.
Regardless of the outcome in court, Hasbro/WotCs actions are dishonest and reprehensible. The eventually outcome doesn't change the steps they took to cover up their past opinion on the matter (the people relied upon in good faith) or them lieing about the intent of the OGL later.
Whether they end up succeeding or failing in deauthorization, the attempt itself is dishonest and vile.
Is it even the same people in charge, given the agreement was set up 20 years ago? Not a given it is even the same principle shareholders after 20 years.
That literally does not matter. As a Corporate entity, Hasbro and WotC are distinct entities from the people running them. New owners and leaders dp not have free reign to abandon their promises and commitments - there's no provision for, "We don't like the contract the last guy wrote, so we're just going to ignore the contents and declare it void, despite lacking the power to do so."
You're not going to win the internet, sorry, by playing the sorts of games clowns on Twitter and Reddit play day after day. If disingenuity is all you have, you're not a winner. You're that word beginning with "l" that means the opposite of that.
I'm not trying to "win" anything, only to temper your expectations. Declaring arguments or analogies you don't like to be "lame" is not a rebuttal of any kind.
A TTRPG industry in which one company (like Hasbro) can have more dominance in the market; can have more power over third party creators; and can have more control over what's produced is also a TTRPG industry in which marginalized creators will struggle more to be recognized and remunerated for their contributions to the hobby, due to the fact that there will be less opportunities for them to get their creations out there.
A vibrant TTRPG industry full of diverse third party creators is what brings more opportunities like that, and, while the Open RPG Creative License seems to be trying to throw the doors of the industry open, the Open Game License 1.2 appears to be trying to slam the doors of the industry shut.
That makes the whole, "They're doing this for inclusion," line ring especially hollow and makes me especially upset when it's used.
But WHY do they have such dominance? There are dozens of other games out there using completely different mechanics to D&D that D&D 's license has zero effect over.
Hasbro/WotC/D&D have the dominance they have due to the popularity of the game. This is why 4e nearly killed it. It was the most inaccessible incarnation.
There are also simpler systems out there. GURPS, for instance (or at least its original rules.... might be completely different now for all I know). It is still around, but is nowhere near as 'around' as it was back in the day. If all these other systems are so much better, why has none of them gotten the popularity of D&D?
Under the current OGL, Hasbro's strategy to dominate the market appeared to be to begin relationships with third party publishers because a rising tide lifts all ships.
Under the new OGL, Hasbro's strategy to dominate the market appears to be to end relationships with third party publishers because Master Blaster runs Bartertown.
One strategy has a lot more opportunities for marginalized creators than the other.
A TTRPG industry in which one company (like Hasbro) can have more dominance in the market; can have more power over third party creators; and can have more control over what's produced is also a TTRPG industry in which marginalized creators will struggle more to be recognized and remunerated for their contributions to the hobby, due to the fact that there will be less opportunities for them to get their creations out there.
Honestly, the OGL has contributed to stagnation on the TTRPG market, by encouraging people to produce 'more of same' instead of actual innovative work. Killing the OGL would mean less trash filler d20 content and more new ideas.
A TTRPG industry in which one company (like Hasbro) can have more dominance in the market; can have more power over third party creators; and can have more control over what's produced is also a TTRPG industry in which marginalized creators will struggle more to be recognized and remunerated for their contributions to the hobby, due to the fact that there will be less opportunities for them to get their creations out there.
Honestly, the OGL has contributed to stagnation on the TTRPG market, by encouraging people to produce 'more of same' instead of actual innovative work. Killing the OGL would mean less trash filler d20 content and more new ideas.
It's safe to say that the OGL decreased innovation, but it's also safe to say that the OGL increased opportunities for third party creators to not only create but get paid to create, which is my point.
It's safe to say that the OGL decreased innovation, but it's also safe to say that the OGL increased opportunities for third party creators to not only create but get paid to create, which is my point.
I... don't actually care? The stuff that's actually worth anything could have been published without the OGL.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Probably because there are no similar examples that involve the OGL, making abuse of the OGL in a similar manner entirely hypothetical.
As of now, the idea that the OGL itself is somehow vulnerable to this is entirely hypothetical. It's not a justification for deauthorizing 1.0a.
WotC doesn't own the game. They own their copyright protected flavour (i.e. lore) published in their books, etc., and also their trademarks (e.g. the name D&D). The game itself is the mechanics and how players use them, which no one owns. There really is no perfect analogy with McDonald's, but a much closer one would be them seeking to claim ownership over all food made with the same recipes that they use.
“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 SatieI was under the impression that McDonald's are evil megalomaniacs.
And it's handled by Trademark Law, nothing to do with the OGL. AND not a single Star Frontiers New Genesis book has been sold. If it does somehow get published, its print run would be what? a few thousand? And nobody would blame WoTC. Meanwhile, you can download Mein Kamf for $3.49.
You guys who want WoTC to be the moral vigilantes of the gaming world need to rethink things. I mean, WoTC President and CEO Cynthia Williams worked for Philip Morris for 12 years as a financial executive back when they were being investigated for targeting minors for cigarette sales and lost in court.
It is not about vigilantism. WotC believes they own the rights to Star Frontiers, and someone not only attempted to publish their own product under it, but attempted to publish hate speech with it. Is it that hard to grasp why that would make them want to ensure hate speech cannot be published under an official WotC license for Dungeons and Dragons, an infinitely more well known property of theirs?
1. I think I can give agreement here. I would have been fine if the old OGL were left alone except to add a prohibition on NFTs. Edit: They would still need to take care here. If they declared other VTT's fog of war as NFT-ish, then they'd receive rightful scorn from the dissenters.
2. They can already address this separately from the OGL. They didn't need 1.1 to do that, they already have these rights and did not need to add to an OGL in order to do so. The OGL does not protect you from harming Wizards in this way and it never will. What wizards is proposing is simply the ability to declare harm without having to show justification in the already provided legal avenues. Not only that but they also make it nigh impossible to challenge their definition of harm AND they have tried to make everyone else sign away the very rights they so want to hold for themselves.
Since you struck through the rest of your points, I'll withhold responding.
There was never a need to make such huge changes to the OGL. had they only stayed with banning NFTs, I doubt very many people would have been offended. If they really care about NFT abuse (they don't, really; it's a smokescreen) then I would praise them for making a 1.0b banning NFTs and making the OGL irrevocable for SRDs currently made available under it.
It's an open license. Part of the concept is that you're giving up control of what can be done with it - it's a risk. But 1.0a does address making sure its hard to associate a "bad" product with DnD. Section 7 says the following -
7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.
Making it clear that unless you meet additional standards, your product is essentially not allowed to associate with WotC or DnD.
You're actually more limited under 1.0a if you're publishing "bad" content than if you publish unlicensed - if you publish unlicensed, you CAN claim compatability with Dungeons and Dragons.
The reputations risk of this scenario is external to the OGL, and the OGL takes steps to reduce it.
1.2 provides no functional additional benefits to WotC in this regard.
Other authorized versions, yes.
"Lame" is not legal terminology, but you're welcome to try that on a judge if you want.
If they had the ability to de-authorize old versions, that clause would be meaningless. Their own FAQ also implied using old versions was and always would be available.
What's more reasonable - it works as written, and if they wanted to be able to de-authorize old versions they'd have said so? Or... well, nothing really. That is literally the only reasonable explanation, and it also matches what the authors said.
We've been over this item forever. Hasbros attempt to deauthorize is clearly in bad faith and contrary to assurances they gave. End of story, that is fact.
A TTRPG industry in which one company (like Hasbro) can have more dominance in the market; can have more power over third party creators; and can have more control over what's produced is also a TTRPG industry in which marginalized creators will struggle more to be recognized and remunerated for their contributions to the hobby, due to the fact that there will be less opportunities for them to get their creations out there.
A vibrant TTRPG industry full of diverse third party creators is what brings more opportunities like that, and, while the Open RPG Creative License seems to be trying to throw the doors of the industry open, the Open Game License 1.2 appears to be trying to slam the doors of the industry shut.
That makes the whole, "They're doing this for inclusion," line ring especially hollow and makes me especially upset when it's used.
Judges know that perpetual does not mean irrevocable, they don't need an analogy.
The clause wouldn't be meaningless, it just wouldn't accomplish what you want it to accomplish. The FAQ is not a part of the license. It is evidence of intent, which might well influence the outcome of a lawsuit, but it's not definitive.
Look, if someone challenged the revocation of the 1.0a OGL in court, they might win. They also might lose, and either way the big winner would be the lawyers.
Wow I can't believe that there are actually still WotC stans after all this. Just joining this thread but it's funny how most of the reasons are already crossed out and the two remaining ones are just non-starters.
There's already inherent protections against things like racist and offensive shit hitting the mainstream. For one they need to find a place to actually distribute their product. Your Local Game Store is probably not gonna start selling some random book some racist just walked in with one day so that's off the table. And Online retailers have similar review processes that would get their products taken down long before they hit store shelves. So the best case scenario is that they either sell it directly themselves or go through some retailer that is already willing to sell racist offensive shit. Either way it self-contains that kind of content to very specific corners of the internet where it will wallow in obscurity.
I mean lets be real here, offensive books have existed for decades does anyone really think that people only invented being racist with D&D in the past couple years? This has been a "problem" for decades. Yet its never been a big enough problem to actually matter or even been noticed by the vast majority of the community in that entire time.
And of course the real meat of the issue isn't that WotC is trying to crack down on racist shit. It's that they're doing it in the most draconian way possible. Even if you accept that WotC should update the OGL to address this specifically, surely you must recognize that the way the document is worded is hugely problematic. Why should they be the only and final word on what is considered offensive? Why should the publishers have no ability to contest these decisions in or out of court? What happens if the current or next CEO turns out to be a huge homophobe and suddenly anything depicting non-straight relationships starts getting taken down with no recourse for those publishers? Even in a perfect world where I had any remaining trust in WotC anymore why would I want to publish content for their system in a world where they could take it down at a moments notice for any reason and I would have zero recourse?
And as for NFTs, I mean lets be real nobody needs to stop NFTs cause they're doing a good enough job stopping themselves lol. I mean that shit basically was popular for 1 year and its already dying out as people catch onto the scam. And besides, Cryptobros have a rather "advanced" interpretation of copyright law. If you think that updating the OGL would actually stop anyone who wanted to make NFTs out of D&D shit from doing so, well just because something is less than legal has never stopped them in the past. My point is just that it's an empty gesture. NFTs aren't a serious threat to their brand and will take care of themselves. It's also unclear as to how NFTs would even really apply in this manner. Like the OGL is about making content like maps and subclasses and such for D&D. NFTs are generally either artworks or small bits of code. If someone wanted to make a line of NFTs inspired by D&D this new OGL wouldn't be able to stop them in any way, and if they wanted to make NFTs using actual official D&D artwork, well they wouldn't have needed a new OGL to sue them for that.
But yeah it feels like the person that made this thread just succumbed to the exact thing WotC wants you to believe. None of this is about actually stopping offensive content in any meaningful way. At best its a side effect of trying to quell competition and control the brand with an iron fist. The way these clauses are written is downright awful and gives WotC a massive overreach of power. Even if you honestly believe they have to do this to 'solve' the issue of offensive content in the market, the way they're writing this OGL does a terrible job of it.
Regardless of the outcome in court, Hasbro/WotCs actions are dishonest and reprehensible. The eventually outcome doesn't change the steps they took to cover up their past opinion on the matter (the people relied upon in good faith) or them lieing about the intent of the OGL later.
Whether they end up succeeding or failing in deauthorization, the attempt itself is dishonest and vile.
That literally does not matter. As a Corporate entity, Hasbro and WotC are distinct entities from the people running them. New owners and leaders dp not have free reign to abandon their promises and commitments - there's no provision for, "We don't like the contract the last guy wrote, so we're just going to ignore the contents and declare it void, despite lacking the power to do so."
I'm not trying to "win" anything, only to temper your expectations. Declaring arguments or analogies you don't like to be "lame" is not a rebuttal of any kind.
Under the current OGL, Hasbro's strategy to dominate the market appeared to be to begin relationships with third party publishers because a rising tide lifts all ships.
Under the new OGL, Hasbro's strategy to dominate the market appears to be to end relationships with third party publishers because Master Blaster runs Bartertown.
One strategy has a lot more opportunities for marginalized creators than the other.
Honestly, the OGL has contributed to stagnation on the TTRPG market, by encouraging people to produce 'more of same' instead of actual innovative work. Killing the OGL would mean less trash filler d20 content and more new ideas.
It's safe to say that the OGL decreased innovation, but it's also safe to say that the OGL increased opportunities for third party creators to not only create but get paid to create, which is my point.
I... don't actually care? The stuff that's actually worth anything could have been published without the OGL.