No. He's showing that even if his argument holds and OGL 1.0a is banished and those making games and products for that community can no longer do so that he doesn't care if marginalized makers of such within that community are now out of luck and out of work.
So OSR content is impossible to make under SRD 5.1? Because that SRD is confirmed to be irrevocably compatible with OGL 1.2.
I am referring to the possibility of Wizards' using 6f to destroy a publisher because a bunch of mind-readers "just know" some publisher must be a terrible person because he attended a lecture by some public figure those prone to hyperbolic emotionally-driven hypotheticals in defense of 6f consider a monster and have then gone and lobbied and bullied Wizards into doing so.
And then word gets out, the community gets up in arms again, and most likely D&D collapses as everyone moves away from it. You really think, after they backpedaled so hard when the community got up in arms over 1.1, that they're "cleverly" going to use the "please don't tie us to your hate speech" clause in such a blatantly punitive way when they're already on thin ice?
If they don't backpedal over 1.0a or the cancellation clauses at this point, it's gonna be a clear signal that they don't care enough about community outcry to care later if they do decide to exercise this right.
If people give up and concede now, they'll have established that Wizards can just power through protest and get away with essentially whatever they want.
No. He's showing that even if his argument holds and OGL 1.0a is banished and those making games and products for that community can no longer do so that he doesn't care if marginalized makers of such within that community are now out of luck and out of work.
So OSR content is impossible to make under SRD 5.1? Because that SRD is confirmed to be irrevocably compatible with OGL 1.2.
I am referring to the possibility of Wizards' using 6f to destroy a publisher because a bunch of mind-readers "just know" some publisher must be a terrible person because he attended a lecture by some public figure those prone to hyperbolic emotionally-driven hypotheticals in defense of 6f consider a monster and have then gone and lobbied and bullied Wizards into doing so.
And then word gets out, the community gets up in arms again, and most likely D&D collapses as everyone moves away from it. You really think, after they backpedaled so hard when the community got up in arms over 1.1, that they're "cleverly" going to use the "please don't tie us to your hate speech" clause in such a blatantly punitive way when they're already on thin ice?
If they don't backpedal over 1.0a or the cancellation clauses at this point, it's gonna be a clear signal that they don't care enough about community outcry to care later if they do decide to exercise this right.
If people give up and concede now, they'll have established that Wizards can just power through protest and get away with essentially whatever they want.
Oh yes, because we certainly haven't forced them to cease their attempts to claim royalties on 3PP's, among other issues. There's this concept you may have heard of called "compromise"; it means both sides come to an agreement where they walk away griping about how unreasonable the other side was because they weren't able to get every single thing they wanted, and then life goes on.
I am referring to the possibility of Wizards' using 6f to destroy a publisher because a bunch of mind-readers "just know" some publisher must be a terrible person because he attended a lecture by some public figure those prone to hyperbolic emotionally-driven hypotheticals in defense of 6f consider a monster and have then gone and lobbied and bullied Wizards into doing so.
That publisher hires people.
You mean people basing their livelihood on other people's licensed property need to exercise care with their public conduct? Who would have thought?
Oh yes, because we certainly haven't forced them to cease their attempts to claim royalties on 3PP's, among other issues. There's this concept you may have heard of called "compromise"; it means both sides come to an agreement where they walk away griping about how unreasonable the other side was because they weren't able to get every single thing they wanted, and then life goes on.
Oh, I'm open to compromise - if they drop their attempt to de-authorize 1.0a, they can do whatever the heck they want with OneDnD/6e so far as I'm concerned. Put it under GSL, some new license, charge royalties for third party work, whatever - that's their deal, and if they want to cripple their own game because they don't understand what third party creators do for them, whatever. Reverse course on backwards compatibility for 6e, if they're too worried about 5e content being compatible and carrying forward. That's all within their power - even if I don't think its a good idea.
The key point to me is that 1.0a was clearly intended to be available forever, clearly not intended to exclude software like video games or electronic tools, and their stated reasons for wanting to de-authorize it are all transparently BS. So long as they're pushing forward with de-authorization, nothing that Hasbro/WotC can ever be trusted.
Oh yes, because we certainly haven't forced them to cease their attempts to claim royalties on 3PP's, among other issues. There's this concept you may have heard of called "compromise"; it means both sides come to an agreement where they walk away griping about how unreasonable the other side was because they weren't able to get every single thing they wanted, and then life goes on.
Oh, I'm open to compromise - if they drop their attempt to de-authorize 1.0a, they can do whatever the heck they want with OneDnD/6e so far as I'm concerned. Put it under GSL, some new license, charge royalties for third party work, whatever - that's their deal, and if they want to cripple their own game because they don't understand what third party creators do for them, whatever. Reverse course on backwards compatibility for 6e, if they're too worried about 5e content being compatible and carrying forward. That's all within their power - even if I don't think its a good idea.
The key point to me is that 1.0a was clearly intended to be available forever, clearly not intended to exclude software like video games or electronic tools, and their stated reasons for wanting to de-authorize it are all transparently BS. So long as they're pushing forward with de-authorization, nothing that Hasbro/WotC can ever be trusted.
You're open to compromise... as long as you get everything you're asking for anyways.
I do not think that word means what you think it does.
No. He's showing that even if his argument holds and OGL 1.0a is banished and those making games and products for that community can no longer do so that he doesn't care if marginalized makers of such within that community are now out of luck and out of work.
So OSR content is impossible to make under SRD 5.1? Because that SRD is confirmed to be irrevocably compatible with OGL 1.2.
I am referring to the possibility of Wizards' using 6f to destroy a publisher because a bunch of mind-readers "just know" some publisher must be a terrible person because he attended a lecture by some public figure those prone to hyperbolic emotionally-driven hypotheticals in defense of 6f consider a monster and have then gone and lobbied and bullied Wizards into doing so.
And then word gets out, the community gets up in arms again, and most likely D&D collapses as everyone moves away from it. You really think, after they backpedaled so hard when the community got up in arms over 1.1, that they're "cleverly" going to use the "please don't tie us to your hate speech" clause in such a blatantly punitive way when they're already on thin ice?
If they don't backpedal over 1.0a or the cancellation clauses at this point, it's gonna be a clear signal that they don't care enough about community outcry to care later if they do decide to exercise this right.
If people give up and concede now, they'll have established that Wizards can just power through protest and get away with essentially whatever they want.
Oh yes, because we certainly haven't forced them to cease their attempts to claim royalties on 3PP's, among other issues. There's this concept you may have heard of called "compromise"; it means both sides come to an agreement where they walk away griping about how unreasonable the other side was because they weren't able to get every single thing they wanted, and then life goes on.
There is this concept called anchoring. Look it up.
Oh yes, because we certainly haven't forced them to cease their attempts to claim royalties on 3PP's, among other issues. There's this concept you may have heard of called "compromise"; it means both sides come to an agreement where they walk away griping about how unreasonable the other side was because they weren't able to get every single thing they wanted, and then life goes on.
Oh, I'm open to compromise - if they drop their attempt to de-authorize 1.0a, they can do whatever the heck they want with OneDnD/6e so far as I'm concerned. Put it under GSL, some new license, charge royalties for third party work, whatever - that's their deal, and if they want to cripple their own game because they don't understand what third party creators do for them, whatever. Reverse course on backwards compatibility for 6e, if they're too worried about 5e content being compatible and carrying forward. That's all within their power - even if I don't think its a good idea.
The key point to me is that 1.0a was clearly intended to be available forever, clearly not intended to exclude software like video games or electronic tools, and their stated reasons for wanting to de-authorize it are all transparently BS. So long as they're pushing forward with de-authorization, nothing that Hasbro/WotC can ever be trusted.
You're open to compromise... as long as you get everything you're asking for anyways.
I do not think that word means what you think it does.
...what? What sort of nonsensical take is that?
I'm willing to give up everything else for one single concession.
Oh yes, because we certainly haven't forced them to cease their attempts to claim royalties on 3PP's, among other issues. There's this concept you may have heard of called "compromise"; it means both sides come to an agreement where they walk away griping about how unreasonable the other side was because they weren't able to get every single thing they wanted, and then life goes on.
Oh, I'm open to compromise - if they drop their attempt to de-authorize 1.0a, they can do whatever the heck they want with OneDnD/6e so far as I'm concerned. Put it under GSL, some new license, charge royalties for third party work, whatever - that's their deal, and if they want to cripple their own game because they don't understand what third party creators do for them, whatever. Reverse course on backwards compatibility for 6e, if they're too worried about 5e content being compatible and carrying forward. That's all within their power - even if I don't think its a good idea.
The key point to me is that 1.0a was clearly intended to be available forever, clearly not intended to exclude software like video games or electronic tools, and their stated reasons for wanting to de-authorize it are all transparently BS. So long as they're pushing forward with de-authorization, nothing that Hasbro/WotC can ever be trusted.
You're open to compromise... as long as you get everything you're asking for anyways.
I do not think that word means what you think it does.
No, that actually is a compromise.
Original deal : We get the OGL 1.0, everything is status quo and normal. This lasts 20 years, establishing time tested stability in this deal/system/setup/arrangement. This is our starting point - any move from this point on our part IS a compromise on our part as the community.
Wizards gets bought by Hasbro, Hasbro decides they want more money, and now Hasbro is forcing Wizards to offer us a new deal; however, one of the stipulations and guiding principles of the original deal that we've had for 20 years was the idea that if there ever was a new OGL, players would have the OPTION of adapting to it and using it, or sticking with the current 1.0 OGL, thus removing the potential ability for anyone to come along and scoop up the rights of all this third party content that's been made for the last 20 years.
The person you're replying to has said they're willing to entertain the idea of a new OGL, an updated one, so long as they leave the original alone and stop with this deauthorization nonsense. Basically they're saying if Wizards/Hasbro will abide by the original deal's stipulations as they were presented to us, then they're OK with changing to a new OGL. That IS compromise, because currently Wizards wants US to change what we already have the rights to. If they want to take something away [the OGL 1.0, updated with a new one] then they need to also compromise and give us something back, and that would be things like; not trying to deauthorize the 1.0 OGL, actually making a new OGL that actually IS better so people want to adapt to it, etc.
To reiterate for the umpteenth time; Wizards of the Coast decided to start this scuffle by removing rights we already have and are entitled to, and have been entitled to for decades. That is not us starting a fight with them, or us being unwilling to compromise or be reasonable, that is Wizards being greedy and absurd by simply deciding that they are entitled to more than their fair share overnight, logic and history and precedent be damned.
No. He's showing that even if his argument holds and OGL 1.0a is banished and those making games and products for that community can no longer do so that he doesn't care if marginalized makers of such within that community are now out of luck and out of work.
So OSR content is impossible to make under SRD 5.1? Because that SRD is confirmed to be irrevocably compatible with OGL 1.2.
I am referring to the possibility of Wizards' using 6f to destroy a publisher because a bunch of mind-readers "just know" some publisher must be a terrible person because he attended a lecture by some public figure those prone to hyperbolic emotionally-driven hypotheticals in defense of 6f consider a monster and have then gone and lobbied and bullied Wizards into doing so.
And then word gets out, the community gets up in arms again, and most likely D&D collapses as everyone moves away from it. You really think, after they backpedaled so hard when the community got up in arms over 1.1, that they're "cleverly" going to use the "please don't tie us to your hate speech" clause in such a blatantly punitive way when they're already on thin ice?
Gets up in arms? Like you're doing now? What would happen, Mr. Hypotheticals, is you'd go along with whatever the mob and the media told you to go along with. It's why so many of your posts are hyperbolic emotionally-driven hypotheticals about Genocide: The Role-playing Game.
If a horde of angry players lobbied and bullied Wizards into removing the license out from under someone like James Raggi just because he was photographed with Jordan Peterson, you wouldn't be up in arms. You'd be on the forums posting vacuity after vacuity about how that was justified.
No, in point of fact, I would not be in the forums at all because I have no earthly idea who either of those people are.
Oh yes, because we certainly haven't forced them to cease their attempts to claim royalties on 3PP's, among other issues. There's this concept you may have heard of called "compromise"; it means both sides come to an agreement where they walk away griping about how unreasonable the other side was because they weren't able to get every single thing they wanted, and then life goes on.
Oh, I'm open to compromise - if they drop their attempt to de-authorize 1.0a, they can do whatever the heck they want with OneDnD/6e so far as I'm concerned. Put it under GSL, some new license, charge royalties for third party work, whatever - that's their deal, and if they want to cripple their own game because they don't understand what third party creators do for them, whatever. Reverse course on backwards compatibility for 6e, if they're too worried about 5e content being compatible and carrying forward. That's all within their power - even if I don't think its a good idea.
The key point to me is that 1.0a was clearly intended to be available forever, clearly not intended to exclude software like video games or electronic tools, and their stated reasons for wanting to de-authorize it are all transparently BS. So long as they're pushing forward with de-authorization, nothing that Hasbro/WotC can ever be trusted.
You're open to compromise... as long as you get everything you're asking for anyways.
I do not think that word means what you think it does.
No, that actually is a compromise.
Original deal : We get the OGL 1.0, everything is status quo and normal. This lasts 20 years, establishing time tested stability in this deal/system/setup/arrangement. This is our starting point - any move from this point on our part IS a compromise on our part as the community.
Wizards gets bought by Hasbro, Hasbro decides they want more money, and now Hasbro is forcing Wizards to offer us a new deal; however, one of the stipulations and guiding principles of the original deal that we've had for 20 years was the idea that if there ever was a new OGL, players would have the OPTION of adapting to it and using it, or sticking with the current 1.0 OGL, thus removing the potential ability for anyone to come along and scoop up the rights of all this third party content that's been made for the last 20 years.
The person you're replying to has said they're willing to entertain the idea of a new OGL, an updated one, so long as they leave the original alone and stop with this deauthorization nonsense. Basically they're saying if Wizards/Hasbro will abide by the original deal's stipulations as they were presented to us, then they're OK with changing to a new OGL. That IS compromise, because currently Wizards wants US to change what we already have the rights to. If they want to take something away [the OGL 1.0, updated with a new one] then they need to also compromise and give us something back, and that would be things like; not trying to deauthorize the 1.0 OGL, actually making a new OGL that actually IS better so people want to adapt to it, etc.
To reiterate for the umpteenth time; Wizards of the Coast decided to start this scuffle by removing rights we already have and are entitled to, and have been entitled to for decades. That is not us starting a fight with them, or us being unwilling to compromise or be reasonable, that is Wizards being greedy and absurd by simply deciding that they are entitled to more than their fair share overnight, logic and history and precedent be damned.
Except a new OGL is pointless if the old one remains in effect. Ergo, essentially nothing is happening, which is what they want.
Except a new OGL is pointless if the old one remains in effect. Ergo, essentially nothing is happening, which is what they want.
Except they can do exactly what they did with 4e, and create a new license to go with 6e/OneDnD and not connect it to the OGL.
Then they can break their promise to make 6e backwards compatible to prevent people from making 5e content for it under 1.0a! Breaking that promise would be a bad look, but hey - at least it wouldn't be a quasi-legal attempt to worm out of a contract they wrote.
Oh yes, because we certainly haven't forced them to cease their attempts to claim royalties on 3PP's, among other issues. There's this concept you may have heard of called "compromise"; it means both sides come to an agreement where they walk away griping about how unreasonable the other side was because they weren't able to get every single thing they wanted, and then life goes on.
Oh, I'm open to compromise - if they drop their attempt to de-authorize 1.0a, they can do whatever the heck they want with OneDnD/6e so far as I'm concerned. Put it under GSL, some new license, charge royalties for third party work, whatever - that's their deal, and if they want to cripple their own game because they don't understand what third party creators do for them, whatever. Reverse course on backwards compatibility for 6e, if they're too worried about 5e content being compatible and carrying forward. That's all within their power - even if I don't think its a good idea.
The key point to me is that 1.0a was clearly intended to be available forever, clearly not intended to exclude software like video games or electronic tools, and their stated reasons for wanting to de-authorize it are all transparently BS. So long as they're pushing forward with de-authorization, nothing that Hasbro/WotC can ever be trusted.
You're open to compromise... as long as you get everything you're asking for anyways.
I do not think that word means what you think it does.
No, that actually is a compromise.
Original deal : We get the OGL 1.0, everything is status quo and normal. This lasts 20 years, establishing time tested stability in this deal/system/setup/arrangement. This is our starting point - any move from this point on our part IS a compromise on our part as the community.
Wizards gets bought by Hasbro, Hasbro decides they want more money, and now Hasbro is forcing Wizards to offer us a new deal; however, one of the stipulations and guiding principles of the original deal that we've had for 20 years was the idea that if there ever was a new OGL, players would have the OPTION of adapting to it and using it, or sticking with the current 1.0 OGL, thus removing the potential ability for anyone to come along and scoop up the rights of all this third party content that's been made for the last 20 years.
The person you're replying to has said they're willing to entertain the idea of a new OGL, an updated one, so long as they leave the original alone and stop with this deauthorization nonsense. Basically they're saying if Wizards/Hasbro will abide by the original deal's stipulations as they were presented to us, then they're OK with changing to a new OGL. That IS compromise, because currently Wizards wants US to change what we already have the rights to. If they want to take something away [the OGL 1.0, updated with a new one] then they need to also compromise and give us something back, and that would be things like; not trying to deauthorize the 1.0 OGL, actually making a new OGL that actually IS better so people want to adapt to it, etc.
To reiterate for the umpteenth time; Wizards of the Coast decided to start this scuffle by removing rights we already have and are entitled to, and have been entitled to for decades. That is not us starting a fight with them, or us being unwilling to compromise or be reasonable, that is Wizards being greedy and absurd by simply deciding that they are entitled to more than their fair share overnight, logic and history and precedent be damned.
Except a new OGL is pointless if the old one remains in effect. Ergo, essentially nothing is happening, which is what they want.
Poppycock! A new OGL is perfectly legitimate for a new SRD and anything that comes after it. SRD 5.1 was released under OGL 1.0a and is forever covered under that OGL as defined by the terms of that OGL.
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.
I feel like it's mostly moot at this point anyway. From what I hear, the third parties are all very lined up behind ORC and even if WOTC ditched all of this and kept 1.0a and promised it would never change or be revoked or deauthorised and put it in the public domain and etc etc. it wouldn't matter. Those TPP's are committed to the ORC creation and are moving to that so it seems like in the very near future, no one is going to be using either OGL but his is just going around in circles, and most of what's being said is non-productive.
It seems that everyone who will be convinced one way or the other already is, so maybe we should just let it lie. Unless you genuinely think you continuing this thread will influence WOTC one way or another. If you think that, then ok, post away, but I feel like this has run its course. Once they provide an update based on feedback (or whatever) then we can relaunch this debate.
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?
Advanced DnD was the first RPG i played. Compared to 4e, honestly it was probably total shit, but i never played 4e simply because there was no content out there that really enticed me into it.
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
One part is that Dungeons and Dragons is the only TTRPG that has any kind of mainstream notoriety - between it being one of the first and most prevalant, as well as it being the only one that's regularly referenced. It's the only TTRPG that has name brand recognition, that in and of itself is valuable when you're talking about putting a product on the market. People are way more likely to check out what Kleenex is selling over Bobbits, because Kleenex has a prior connotation in your brain, even though neither word Kleenex or Bobbits has 'tissues' or tells you literally anything about what they sell in their names in any way. That's brand recognition, in a nutshell, and D&D has it.
The other part is the OGL and how it was recognized at one point in time that working WITH third party creators and making their content 'legit' was a better way to build rapport and quantity of content without having to invest heavily in it - and it saves on costly lawsuits as well because you're not chasing after people for making an adventure book, you're instead letting them make that adventure book, turn a tiny profit on it, bring you more business because they want their adventure book to sell so they do the legwork of getting people to play D&D and making the game popular - this times 1000 and BOOM you've basically got your third party content creators having a vested interest in your IP being the most played game at the table, because it's the one that they're going to be able to participate in and have some ownership of and potentially make a little coin on the side - that's a classic win win win.
Unfortunately that lesson has been lost to time, as it's something corporations seem to need to re-learn in a cyclical fashion. It's almost poetic in a sort of meta, good vs. evil trope kind of way. But mostly it's just boring and predictable at this point.
I am referring to the possibility of Wizards' using 6f to destroy a publisher because a bunch of mind-readers "just know" some publisher must be a terrible person because he attended a lecture by some public figure those prone to hyperbolic emotionally-driven hypotheticals in defense of 6f consider a monster and have then gone and lobbied and bullied Wizards into doing so.
That publisher hires people.
You mean people basing their livelihood on other people's licensed property need to exercise care with their public conduct? Who would have thought?
"Property" is not the correct term here. Whether OGL 1.0a or 1.2, it is an agreement between parties to stay out of court. In it (among other things) creators agree that Wizards can treat some things that are are otherwise not legally their property as if it was their property. "Beholder" is not their property. "Book of Vile Darkness" is not their property. Publishing under the OGL means you will treat these unownable things as Wizard's property.
“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
After twenty-two years of people being under the understanding that they can use that licensed property they are just foolish to think they can maintain the source of income that feeds them and their families because Wizards said, Nah, and those who said they were in their right to do so join them in unison in bleating the word?
They can still use that licensed property. It's going under another license, not being nuked from orbit. They can even feed their families, there's no royalty or licenseback.
If a publisher wants to go around retweeting JK Rowling, they're free to do so. And companies who are licensing stuff to them similarly have the freedom to not want to be associated with that publisher. You're saying the freedoms of the property's actual owner don't matter, and I'll never agree with that. The solution here is quite simple - if you care about absolute freedom, do that with your own stuff.
If a publisher wants to go around retweeting JK Rowling, they're free to do so. And companies who are licensing stuff to them similarly have the freedom to not want to be associated with that publisher. You're saying the freedoms of the property's actual owner don't matter, and I'll never agree with that. The solution here is quite simple - if you care about absolute freedom, do that with your own stuff.
Everyone always forgets that part of freedom is the freedom to take the consequences of your actions.
Now replace Rowling with any public figure with whom you agree.
I can't even figure out what point you're trying to make. Someone who's in favor of the freedom of the property owner to do reprehensible things is presumably also in favor of the freedom of the property owner to do good things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If they don't backpedal over 1.0a or the cancellation clauses at this point, it's gonna be a clear signal that they don't care enough about community outcry to care later if they do decide to exercise this right.
If people give up and concede now, they'll have established that Wizards can just power through protest and get away with essentially whatever they want.
Oh yes, because we certainly haven't forced them to cease their attempts to claim royalties on 3PP's, among other issues. There's this concept you may have heard of called "compromise"; it means both sides come to an agreement where they walk away griping about how unreasonable the other side was because they weren't able to get every single thing they wanted, and then life goes on.
You mean people basing their livelihood on other people's licensed property need to exercise care with their public conduct? Who would have thought?
If you add that thing you're spamming to your sig it might save you some time, just saying.
Oh, I'm open to compromise - if they drop their attempt to de-authorize 1.0a, they can do whatever the heck they want with OneDnD/6e so far as I'm concerned. Put it under GSL, some new license, charge royalties for third party work, whatever - that's their deal, and if they want to cripple their own game because they don't understand what third party creators do for them, whatever. Reverse course on backwards compatibility for 6e, if they're too worried about 5e content being compatible and carrying forward. That's all within their power - even if I don't think its a good idea.
The key point to me is that 1.0a was clearly intended to be available forever, clearly not intended to exclude software like video games or electronic tools, and their stated reasons for wanting to de-authorize it are all transparently BS. So long as they're pushing forward with de-authorization, nothing that Hasbro/WotC can ever be trusted.
You're open to compromise... as long as you get everything you're asking for anyways.
I do not think that word means what you think it does.
There is this concept called anchoring. Look it up.
...what? What sort of nonsensical take is that?
I'm willing to give up everything else for one single concession.
That's absolutely a compromise.
No, that actually is a compromise.
Original deal : We get the OGL 1.0, everything is status quo and normal. This lasts 20 years, establishing time tested stability in this deal/system/setup/arrangement. This is our starting point - any move from this point on our part IS a compromise on our part as the community.
Wizards gets bought by Hasbro, Hasbro decides they want more money, and now Hasbro is forcing Wizards to offer us a new deal; however, one of the stipulations and guiding principles of the original deal that we've had for 20 years was the idea that if there ever was a new OGL, players would have the OPTION of adapting to it and using it, or sticking with the current 1.0 OGL, thus removing the potential ability for anyone to come along and scoop up the rights of all this third party content that's been made for the last 20 years.
The person you're replying to has said they're willing to entertain the idea of a new OGL, an updated one, so long as they leave the original alone and stop with this deauthorization nonsense. Basically they're saying if Wizards/Hasbro will abide by the original deal's stipulations as they were presented to us, then they're OK with changing to a new OGL. That IS compromise, because currently Wizards wants US to change what we already have the rights to. If they want to take something away [the OGL 1.0, updated with a new one] then they need to also compromise and give us something back, and that would be things like; not trying to deauthorize the 1.0 OGL, actually making a new OGL that actually IS better so people want to adapt to it, etc.
To reiterate for the umpteenth time; Wizards of the Coast decided to start this scuffle by removing rights we already have and are entitled to, and have been entitled to for decades. That is not us starting a fight with them, or us being unwilling to compromise or be reasonable, that is Wizards being greedy and absurd by simply deciding that they are entitled to more than their fair share overnight, logic and history and precedent be damned.
No, in point of fact, I would not be in the forums at all because I have no earthly idea who either of those people are.
Except a new OGL is pointless if the old one remains in effect. Ergo, essentially nothing is happening, which is what they want.
Except they can do exactly what they did with 4e, and create a new license to go with 6e/OneDnD and not connect it to the OGL.
Then they can break their promise to make 6e backwards compatible to prevent people from making 5e content for it under 1.0a! Breaking that promise would be a bad look, but hey - at least it wouldn't be a quasi-legal attempt to worm out of a contract they wrote.
Poppycock! A new OGL is perfectly legitimate for a new SRD and anything that comes after it. SRD 5.1 was released under OGL 1.0a and is forever covered under that OGL as defined by the terms of that OGL.
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.
I feel like it's mostly moot at this point anyway. From what I hear, the third parties are all very lined up behind ORC and even if WOTC ditched all of this and kept 1.0a and promised it would never change or be revoked or deauthorised and put it in the public domain and etc etc. it wouldn't matter. Those TPP's are committed to the ORC creation and are moving to that so it seems like in the very near future, no one is going to be using either OGL but his is just going around in circles, and most of what's being said is non-productive.
It seems that everyone who will be convinced one way or the other already is, so maybe we should just let it lie. Unless you genuinely think you continuing this thread will influence WOTC one way or another. If you think that, then ok, post away, but I feel like this has run its course. Once they provide an update based on feedback (or whatever) then we can relaunch this debate.
Advanced DnD was the first RPG i played. Compared to 4e, honestly it was probably total shit, but i never played 4e simply because there was no content out there that really enticed me into it.
“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 SatieThe 'WHY' is two parts actually -
One part is that Dungeons and Dragons is the only TTRPG that has any kind of mainstream notoriety - between it being one of the first and most prevalant, as well as it being the only one that's regularly referenced. It's the only TTRPG that has name brand recognition, that in and of itself is valuable when you're talking about putting a product on the market. People are way more likely to check out what Kleenex is selling over Bobbits, because Kleenex has a prior connotation in your brain, even though neither word Kleenex or Bobbits has 'tissues' or tells you literally anything about what they sell in their names in any way. That's brand recognition, in a nutshell, and D&D has it.
The other part is the OGL and how it was recognized at one point in time that working WITH third party creators and making their content 'legit' was a better way to build rapport and quantity of content without having to invest heavily in it - and it saves on costly lawsuits as well because you're not chasing after people for making an adventure book, you're instead letting them make that adventure book, turn a tiny profit on it, bring you more business because they want their adventure book to sell so they do the legwork of getting people to play D&D and making the game popular - this times 1000 and BOOM you've basically got your third party content creators having a vested interest in your IP being the most played game at the table, because it's the one that they're going to be able to participate in and have some ownership of and potentially make a little coin on the side - that's a classic win win win.
Unfortunately that lesson has been lost to time, as it's something corporations seem to need to re-learn in a cyclical fashion. It's almost poetic in a sort of meta, good vs. evil trope kind of way. But mostly it's just boring and predictable at this point.
"Property" is not the correct term here. Whether OGL 1.0a or 1.2, it is an agreement between parties to stay out of court. In it (among other things) creators agree that Wizards can treat some things that are are otherwise not legally their property as if it was their property. "Beholder" is not their property. "Book of Vile Darkness" is not their property. Publishing under the OGL means you will treat these unownable things as Wizard's property.
“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 SatieThey can still use that licensed property. It's going under another license, not being nuked from orbit. They can even feed their families, there's no royalty or licenseback.
If a publisher wants to go around retweeting JK Rowling, they're free to do so. And companies who are licensing stuff to them similarly have the freedom to not want to be associated with that publisher. You're saying the freedoms of the property's actual owner don't matter, and I'll never agree with that. The solution here is quite simple - if you care about absolute freedom, do that with your own stuff.
Everyone always forgets that part of freedom is the freedom to take the consequences of your actions.
I can't even figure out what point you're trying to make. Someone who's in favor of the freedom of the property owner to do reprehensible things is presumably also in favor of the freedom of the property owner to do good things.