I continue not to see the one statement that will make me consider returning to D&D. “OGL 1.0a is irrevocable”. That is the line in the sand.
Give me that statement, explicitly legally binding, and I’ll be happy to take a look at what you want to do for oneDnD. But without that, I don’t have a dog in the fight.
Until then, I’m going to keep waiting for my pathfinders books to arrive. I’ve already spent money on the other system, this is an about keeping me. It’s about regaining me as a customer.
I continue not to see the one statement that will make me consider returning to D&D. “OGL 1.0a is irrevocable”. That is the line in the sand.
Give me that statement, explicitly legally binding, and I’ll be happy to take a look at what you want to do for oneDnD. But without that, I don’t have a dog in the fight.
Until then, I’m going to keep waiting for my pathfinders books to arrive. I’ve already spent money on the other system, this is an about keeping me. It’s about regaining me as a customer.
youlll never see that because the offer is revokable, when you produce stuff under the 1.0a thats when it becomes a contract and you cant mess with it, but you can rescind the offer to others, thats what they are doing, and thats what they need to do
even lawyers who are on our side with the fact that the 1.1 sucked ass for everyone, looked at 1.0a and said it was a horrible document that didnt offer enough definition of whats in our rights and whats not, and that we should rewrite it with a clear definition of what our rights are, and whats protected
we dont need 1.0a to be irrevokable. we need a 2.0, that actually outlines what our rights are and explictly protects us, so wizards cant mess with us anymore
I think it really says something that they actually got Kyle Brink to write the post. I mean like, KYLE BRINK!!! Anyways I just think it shows how absolutely desperate they are to clean up the mess they made for themselves. I personally did not find this reassuring. They are just gonna rush the new OGL and it will be kinda crap as well. Hasbro needs to stop trying to make any sort of profit off this stuff. I also hate how stuff published under OGL 1.0a is still under that contract. Hopefully people were smart though and did not create much in that time.
2. take it out of the public eye (facebook, twitter, youtube, tiktok, etc)
If you don't believe me go check out dnd shorts on youtube.
You mean the guy who, just two days ago, reposted a damaging rumour about Wizards’ plans to change D&D Beyond’s subscription (while ignoring that the leak was suspiciously similar in language to a hoax), who promised he had inside sources verifying this rumour, who doubled down and said his inside sources would be confirming this on Wednesday, ignored the fact that the Wednesday announcement was “um, that’s a hoax”, and who is not bothering to take down the post containing misinformation?
2. take it out of the public eye (facebook, twitter, youtube, tiktok, etc)
If you don't believe me go check out dnd shorts on youtube.
Again, DnD Shorts has been riding the sensationalization wave on this from the start. I appreciate the desire to get the news out, but every video of his on this issue is a mix of cheesy animations and one sided presentation of the "WotC are evil demons out to steal all your money and ideas" bit. I appreciate the concerns of the community and share some of them, but he is not being a good reporting source for the issue.
2. take it out of the public eye (facebook, twitter, youtube, tiktok, etc)
If you don't believe me go check out dnd shorts on youtube.
Again, DnD Shorts has been riding the sensationalization wave on this from the start. I appreciate the desire to get the news out, but every video of his on this issue is a mix of cheesy animations and one sided presentation of the "WotC are evil demons out to steal all your money and ideas" bit. I appreciate the concerns of the community and share some of them, but he is not being a good reporting source for the issue.
he actually had several reporters in his comments actually saying "hey its great your getting the info out, but please can you fact check a bit harder, youve gotten two things out of three wrong now"
BTW us non-lawyer rabid hyenaspeons people read the word 'draft' and go under the crazy assumption that it is connected to the dictionary definition of the word:
I'm not saying they aren't shading the issue. I'm certain they're doing their best to downplay their intentions, to whatever degree they match the somewhat hysterical image people were conjuring when the docs leaked. I just don't think it particularly matters. We aren't going to be able to pressure them into making some kind of grand confession, just into putting out a license that codifies protections for third party producers. And all the "rawrr, you better just give us 1.0a and leave it at that" is not on the table for several reasons, chiefly that it ultimately is too ambiguous to be a solid piece for either side, as this debacle has proven.
In many industries, there is idiosyncratic terminology. What is a "draft" in legal terms? LMGTFY:
A draft contract is an agreement that’s not finalized. During the process of a property transaction, for instance, the first agreement is called the draft contract. The precise terms and wording also have not been agreed to by all sides.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
BTW us non-lawyer rabid hyenaspeons people read the word 'draft' and go under the crazy assumption that it is connected to the dictionary definition of the word:
The bold parts are my emphasis. They really should have used the word 'document' instead of 'draft' in this statement.
Even your own definition uses the word draft in the what you call "non-lawyer" sense--it refers to draft treaties, which effectively translates to a fancy way of saying "draft contracts between nations."
Plus, I have sent countless copies of draft contracts to clients--almost always saying something like "please see attached opposing counsel's recent draft document." Never once has someone been confused by the usage of the word draft. Ever. Angry about the terms it contains? Sure. Irrational and wanting to retaliate in a way that is counterproductive? Of course. Confused by the word draft being used in its plain meaning? Nope.
The retraction never gets as much attention as the misinformation
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Dude, you're not supposed to say the quiet part out loud!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I've never been presented a draft legal document that had dates on it saying I had to sign it within a week, oh no whoopsies that's just a draft - like, they can call it a draft all they want but we know for a fact that third party content creators were given deadlines. Drafts don't have deadlines. I could call it a declaration of war too, doesn't mean it actually is. Them saying it's a draft goes directly against the facts that we've seen from many trusted sources.
BTW us non-lawyer rabid hyenaspeons people read the word 'draft' and go under the crazy assumption that it is connected to the dictionary definition of the word:
The bold parts are my emphasis. They really should have used the word 'document' instead of 'draft' in this statement.
Even your own definition uses the word draft in the what you call "non-lawyer" sense--it refers to draft treaties, which effectively translates to a fancy way of saying "draft contracts between nations."
Plus, I have sent countless copies of draft contracts to clients--almost always saying something like "please see attached opposing counsel's recent draft document." Never once has someone been confused by the usage of the word draft. Ever. Angry about the terms it contains? Sure. Irrational and wanting to retaliate in a way that is counterproductive? Of course. Confused by the word draft being used in its plain meaning? Nope.
Again the wiser idea would have been using the word 'document' in this statement just so we didn't have to argue about this stupid thing.
Oh and just to reiterate a key part of the definition:
I've never been presented a draft legal document that had dates on it saying I had to sign it within a week, oh no whoopsies that's just a draft - like, they can call it a draft all they want but we know for a fact that third party content creators were given deadlines. Drafts don't have deadlines. I could call it a declaration of war too, doesn't mean it actually is. Them saying it's a draft goes directly against the facts that we've seen from many trusted sources.
You assume. We know precious little for a fact of exactly how those exchanges went or what their ultimate intentions were. And, again, until the document is executed, it is correct to refer to it as a "draft". Are they shading their presentation? Absolutely. Were they hoping to start taking a slice of the high earning products? Clearly. Beyond that, we have a lot of speculation and a few fragments of information and hearsay.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I continue not to see the one statement that will make me consider returning to D&D. “OGL 1.0a is irrevocable”. That is the line in the sand.
Give me that statement, explicitly legally binding, and I’ll be happy to take a look at what you want to do for oneDnD. But without that, I don’t have a dog in the fight.
Until then, I’m going to keep waiting for my pathfinders books to arrive. I’ve already spent money on the other system, this is an about keeping me. It’s about regaining me as a customer.
WotC is not going to put all their plans on hold while a competitor invents something out of thin air.
^ for many, this is the real reason behind their burning hatred for WotC, and these recent missteps are a convenient excuse.
youlll never see that because the offer is revokable, when you produce stuff under the 1.0a thats when it becomes a contract and you cant mess with it, but you can rescind the offer to others, thats what they are doing, and thats what they need to do
even lawyers who are on our side with the fact that the 1.1 sucked ass for everyone, looked at 1.0a and said it was a horrible document that didnt offer enough definition of whats in our rights and whats not, and that we should rewrite it with a clear definition of what our rights are, and whats protected
we dont need 1.0a to be irrevokable. we need a 2.0, that actually outlines what our rights are and explictly protects us, so wizards cant mess with us anymore
make that document irrevokable, not 1.0a
I think it really says something that they actually got Kyle Brink to write the post. I mean like, KYLE BRINK!!! Anyways I just think it shows how absolutely desperate they are to clean up the mess they made for themselves. I personally did not find this reassuring. They are just gonna rush the new OGL and it will be kinda crap as well. Hasbro needs to stop trying to make any sort of profit off this stuff. I also hate how stuff published under OGL 1.0a is still under that contract. Hopefully people were smart though and did not create much in that time.
A role-player since birth, and one of the lowest forms of life on the planet. Fun!
They want your opinion in ddb so they can:
1. ignore it.
2. take it out of the public eye (facebook, twitter, youtube, tiktok, etc)
If you don't believe me go check out dnd shorts on youtube.
he walked that back: https://twitter.com/DnD_Shorts/status/1615854768575979521
You mean the guy who, just two days ago, reposted a damaging rumour about Wizards’ plans to change D&D Beyond’s subscription (while ignoring that the leak was suspiciously similar in language to a hoax), who promised he had inside sources verifying this rumour, who doubled down and said his inside sources would be confirming this on Wednesday, ignored the fact that the Wednesday announcement was “um, that’s a hoax”, and who is not bothering to take down the post containing misinformation?
Yeah, totally seems like a trustworthy source.
DNDB twitter response:
https://twitter.com/DnDBeyond/status/1615879300414062593?s=20&t=BKylxlYecLWzH2gDRdkBNA
Again, DnD Shorts has been riding the sensationalization wave on this from the start. I appreciate the desire to get the news out, but every video of his on this issue is a mix of cheesy animations and one sided presentation of the "WotC are evil demons out to steal all your money and ideas" bit. I appreciate the concerns of the community and share some of them, but he is not being a good reporting source for the issue.
he actually had several reporters in his comments actually saying "hey its great your getting the info out, but please can you fact check a bit harder, youve gotten two things out of three wrong now"
BTW us non-lawyer
rabid hyenaspeonspeopleread the word 'draft' and go under the crazy assumption that it is connected to the dictionary definition of the word:The bold parts are my emphasis. They really should have used the word 'document' instead of 'draft' in this statement.
I'm not saying they aren't shading the issue. I'm certain they're doing their best to downplay their intentions, to whatever degree they match the somewhat hysterical image people were conjuring when the docs leaked. I just don't think it particularly matters. We aren't going to be able to pressure them into making some kind of grand confession, just into putting out a license that codifies protections for third party producers. And all the "rawrr, you better just give us 1.0a and leave it at that" is not on the table for several reasons, chiefly that it ultimately is too ambiguous to be a solid piece for either side, as this debacle has proven.
In many industries, there is idiosyncratic terminology. What is a "draft" in legal terms? LMGTFY:
The word is technically correct. Certainly ill-chosen, given its connotations in generic English, but still technically correct.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Even your own definition uses the word draft in the what you call "non-lawyer" sense--it refers to draft treaties, which effectively translates to a fancy way of saying "draft contracts between nations."
Plus, I have sent countless copies of draft contracts to clients--almost always saying something like "please see attached opposing counsel's recent draft document." Never once has someone been confused by the usage of the word draft. Ever. Angry about the terms it contains? Sure. Irrational and wanting to retaliate in a way that is counterproductive? Of course. Confused by the word draft being used in its plain meaning? Nope.
The retraction never gets as much attention as the misinformation
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Dude, you're not supposed to say the quiet part out loud!
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I've never been presented a draft legal document that had dates on it saying I had to sign it within a week, oh no whoopsies that's just a draft - like, they can call it a draft all they want but we know for a fact that third party content creators were given deadlines. Drafts don't have deadlines. I could call it a declaration of war too, doesn't mean it actually is. Them saying it's a draft goes directly against the facts that we've seen from many trusted sources.
Kyle's the Executive Producer and all the conversation that began about OGL began as soon as he was made Executive Producer. 100% his doing.
Again the wiser idea would have been using the word 'document' in this statement just so we didn't have to argue about this stupid thing.
Oh and just to reiterate a key part of the definition:
You assume. We know precious little for a fact of exactly how those exchanges went or what their ultimate intentions were. And, again, until the document is executed, it is correct to refer to it as a "draft". Are they shading their presentation? Absolutely. Were they hoping to start taking a slice of the high earning products? Clearly. Beyond that, we have a lot of speculation and a few fragments of information and hearsay.