I play D&D. And have no intention of giving it up. Don't assume I don't play the game just because I am not beholden to Wizards. I am not attacking people who play D&D. My response was directed at someone who seems to care more about Wizards as a company than he does the future or the fate of the hobby itself. I may be a "newbie" to the forum but I've been playing the game since the mid-eighties. Forgive me if I will never understand those who think the game is only the latest official ruleset.
Sure, just know that if a person is enfranchised in the hobby enough to actually post here on these forums with any regularity, then they know enough about the hobby and the company structure that shepherds it to have fairly informed opinions. It is very highly likely that nobody here just blindly champions a corporation over the health of the game. If you are reading that sentiment from a post here, then it is equally likely that you are reading into the post a sentiment that you want to argue with or you are reading the statement of a troll that just wants to pick a fight with you.
So you don't need to "explain" to people (at least here) that WotC and Hasbro are problematic at best when it comes to the health of the hobby. We've been customers for quite some time (playing as long as you in my case). We are aware of their predilections. We are enfranchised enough to care to be here because we love the hobby, not the company. Maybe consider that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
People have a right to be p*ssed if they think Wizards are doing a sh*te job of upholding the legacy of the game.
They do, but they should at least bother to check whether or not what they're getting upset about is actually true. If a company goes out and says "We are NOT doing X", then it seems a bit ridiculous when people panic and proclaim that those people are going to go back on their word and what they just publicly promised to do.
Also, as always, people have the right to disagree with you and explain whether or not views fit with the actual facts of the situation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
There's no need to put "lawyer" in quotation marks. Runkle is a practicing lawyer. Is IP his area of expertise? No. It is firearms and self defense. He is a lawyer, though. That you would so casually dismiss the likelihood of that when it is easy enough to verify hardly inspires in me the drive to see you as an expert of any sort.
Law is a big field encompassing many different specialties, and I would bet that firearms/self defense law and contract law don't have a lot of overlap. Many knowledge fields have specialties that don't translate, Law and medicine being two of the most known. Saying a firearms/self defense lawyer is inherently versed in contract law is like saying your Orthopedist is inherently qualified to do your brain surgery or vice versa.
How many of the avatars here who call themselves lawyers would provide verification of their being lawyers?
I am not a lawyer, but a lawyer is not required to understand contract language and terminology, just familiarity with contracts. I am an architect, and I deal in contracts with my clients on a near daily basis, both in reviewing them, drafting them, and negotiating on them. There are around 5 on my desk (fyi, i am estimating, desk is a bit of a mess right now) right now as I sip my coffee.
And you are completely missing the criticism of the use of the term "draft." Yes. Technically it was a draft. But anyone with even a morsel of wisdom can see Wizards is using the term to manipulate people into believing they never had any intention to activate that license until they had gotten "our" approval.
They are backpedalling and gaslighting. And what's funny about it all is that those who are falling for it have a history of the same in the way they engage with others.
Isn't backpedalling what we want them to do? as in backpedal their original drafted language to not be so draconian? Why are you criticizing them for that again? As for gaslighting, I personally feel that term has become overused to the point of near meaninglessness. No, what they are doing is using specific technical language to protect themselves in the event that this ever ends up in a lawsuit. Telling the truth in a technical manner is still truth, even if it isn't plain language, and so doesn't meet the criteria for actual gaslighting. By the way, being an aforementioned architect, I use the word "draft" in a third context regularly too; it is a thing in english for terms to have different meanings depending on context.
Finally, why is everyone acting like they are going after some poor creative who just wants to make a living? I hate to say it, but all of the 3PPs who would be most affected by this are also corporations acting in their own best interests. They have a lot to gain from keeping a royalty free agreement to use WotC's IP, so don't think their responses aren't written from that (also selfish) lens. WotC wrote a crappy license, and it leaked, and they should fix it; but remember that we are for the most part talking about negotiations between corporations, not between WotC and the actual single creatives, the vast majority of whom make so little money of this IP they wouldn't even have to report it to WotC under the new OGL.
People have a right to be p*ssed if they think Wizards are doing a sh*te job of upholding the legacy of the game.
They do, but they should at least bother to check whether or not what they're getting upset about is actually true. If a company goes out and says "We are NOT doing X", then it seems a bit ridiculous when people panic and proclaim that those people are going to go back on their word and what they just publicly promised to do.
Also, as always, people have the right to disagree with you and explain whether or not views fit with the actual facts of the situation.
They've (WotC/Hasbro) been proven untrustworthy and have been caught in, among other things, "exact words"isms recently. The whole disingenuous "draft" situation - maybe they can technically call 1.1 a draft, but the intent behind it was clearly not that it was an unfinished document presented for review.
So while it's good that they're denying the $30 subscriptions, not gating homebrew, etc. It remains the case that we have no reason to believe those leaks weren't at least partially rooted in fact - and may remain representative of how WotC has been operating.
Because other, verified information makes it clear they can't be trusted.
There's a difference between recognizing that information may not be the 100%, most literal truth - it was likely the perspective of a single individual, which means its likely also warped by perspective and opinion - and dismissing it as irrelevant.
There's no need to put "lawyer" in quotation marks. Runkle is a practicing lawyer. Is IP his area of expertise? No. It is firearms and self defense. He is a lawyer, though. That you would so casually dismiss the likelihood of that when it is easy enough to verify hardly inspires in me the drive to see you as an expert of any sort.
I put it in scare marksbecause all I have to go on is that you claim he is one, and he's either completely ignorant of how these things work or he's intentionally misleading you. I don't really care for either kind, and I'm not wasting my time digging for it. Whether he is one is pretty much irrelevant at this point, and what he's doing is unethical. He doesn't deserve the respect that comes with that title either way. I'm not claiming to be an expert, nor would I want you to take my word for gospel truth even if I were. I want you to think for yourself. He brought nothing to the table as a lawyer, he brought no specialist knowledge, and the one thing that, as a lawyer, he could have helped with, he got wrong and is easily shown to be wrong.
How many of the avatars here who call themselves lawyers would provide verification of their being lawyers?
They don't have to. They're not saying "I'm a lawyer, so my opinion matters more than yours", unlike a certain someone. They're saying "I'm a lawyer and understand this vocabulary, this is what it means, which is verifiable for yourself". They're not asking you to take their opinion on the whole matter simply because they're a lawyer (like you're trying to do on behalf of this commentator), whether they're a lawyer is only tangentially related. I proved their point and I'm not even a lawyer - just someone who understands the nature of esoteric language and Google.
And you are completely missing the criticism of the use of the term "draft." Yes. Technically it was a draft. But anyone with even a morsel of wisdom can see Wizards is using the term to manipulate people into believing they never had any intention to activate that license until they had gotten "our" approval.
There you go putting words into their mouth. When did they say they were going to get our approval before implementing it as it was? Quote please? Because it certainly wasn't in the announcements. That's their remedy as they try to salvage the situation, no one is pretending that it was always part of their plan...apart from you.
They are backpedalling...
That was the whole point, was it not? They wanted to implement OGL 1.1 and everyone didn't. They're not. Why are you complaining that they're doing what you wanted them to do?
and gaslighting.
What gaslighting? I saw plenty of it in that video you shared "WotC is saying here that they'll sue you for using your own rights, even though that's literally the opposite of what they're saying, and they couldn't even if they wanted to". They used the correct word...one that has been shown to you as being the correct one...that's not gaslighting.
And what's funny about it all is that those who are falling for it have a history of the same in the way they engage with others.
The irony of this statement is palpable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
You are asking me to consider something I can plainly see is present here. It's not as if I am talking about every poster. I am specifically talking about those whose every post is in the service of the company. Defending that statement. Defending this statement. Telling people they're overreacting if they so much as dare criticize the statements Wizards have issued.
To this I can only reiterate what was said before:
It is very highly likely that nobody here just blindly champions a corporation over the health of the game. If you are reading that sentiment from a post here, then it is equally likely that you are reading into the post a sentiment that you want to argue with or you are reading the statement of a troll that just wants to pick a fight with you
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
We generally call this gaslighting in the biz, it looks really bad on corporations hoping to retain paying customers. Just sayin
I mean, if that's the hill you want to die on fine, but they were still correct to use that label.
No. No they were not. Draft (n.) is the proper word for any technical document that is unsigned. That, however is not what is indicated in the phases "early draft" and "draft language" as indicated above. They are homonyms and using them interchangeably is improper and deceptive. Like switching between the scientific and non-scientific of the word Theory. It is NOT correct to do so.
I think ill trust the actual lawyers in these forums over you who stated the information about the word draft in another thread
Ian Runkle is a lawyer and he says their continuing to use the term "draft" is very much lying:
I will trust that living breathing lawyer more than avatars on a forum claiming to be lawyers, particularly when they have spent days now dismissing any criticism of Wizards, no matter how valid.
I...wouldn't trust that "living breathing lawyer" over the others. One's in text format, the other in video. As far as I can see, I have about equal reason to believe either is a lawyer - their word that they are one.
Actually, that's not true. I can show that he is being less than sincere:
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.
What Is a Draft Contract?
A draft contract is just an agreement that has not yet been finalized. The parties have not yet agreed on the exact terms and wording used in the draft.
That's what the OGL was. It was an agreement that was not been agreed to by all the parties, one that had been proposed by WotC. Were they trying to pressurise those people into accepting a crappy deal? Seems to be, and anyone who is pretending that WotC are angels are full of it. However, it was a draft. While I'd say certainly say that it was a poor word choice and had the wrong connotations for those not familiar with the esoteric vocabulary of contracts, it's not a lie. It's a lawyer forgetting to completely translate to everyday English.
As for the video itself...it reminds me of the kind of rants you have to endure when someone becomes vindictive. It was so full of spin and words being crammed down Kyle's throat that it was a surprise when he was actually referring to what was actually said in the email. It was ridiculous. The first section was enough to tell you how fast this was being spun - he spent several minutes...repeatedly pointing out that the email was from a company that was following a strategy? Like, they have MOs and processes and ways of doing things? I mean...really, Sherlock? The commentator was cynically trying to manipulate your view point. He was spinning it harder than either of WotC's announcements...and we all know that's saying something, right?
He then moved on from the fluff onto the meat of the announcement and again was shovelling words down Kyle's throat so fast it worried Einstein for a moment there. He's also being dishonest. Watch the segment about accessories for your owned content, for example. WotC, OGL or no, cannot stop you from making and selling dice. They cannot stop you from writing novels about your own worlds or characters and so forth. Even if they wanted to, they can't. This part of the announcement is just a reassurance that, to be honest, is just saying "you still have your rights and the OGL won't impinge on that". He spins it as WotC are going to sue you if you do write your own novels or you sell some dice. Like...think about it...how are they going to do that? Is every TTRPG going to go bust now, because no one is allowed to use d20s anymore? If that were even remotely possible, it would have been done by now. That's not how it works. They can stop you from using the ambersand logo (pretty sure it was never part of OGL anyway) on your products, they can (without the OGL giving you permission) stop you from setting your novel in Forgotten Realms et al and using their characters, but your own world? Your own characters? It would never get to court. It would be considered frivolous and they'd be getting into legal trouble themselves. They can't do it. But there's this alleged lawyer trying to persuade you that WotC is going to sue you.
Yeah.
Let's turn a fraction of the cynicism he would like you to have for WotC back towards him. He relies on views to get money. To get views, he needs to turn up your negative feelings, make you angry, rile you up so you keep watching and researching, sharing it. "WotC makes an announcement that they're trying to do better" doesn't generate views. "WotC is of the devil and this is how they're going to try and destroy" does. I've shown you two instances of where he's been dishonest with you in order to rile you up (there are more). Is it possible that he's quite willing to lie to you in order to get you to view his videos more and thereby generate money for him?
Is that really someone you want to listen to, rather than doing your own research and learning how these things work for yourself?
Look, I'm not WotC fan. I've spent more than one thread ranting about how WotC are not living up to expectations and how they've been treating us poorly. Any of the regulars could tell you that I'm not reticent to criticise them or call them out when I feel they're doing something wrong. The difference is that I'm also keen on sticking to the truth. I don't go on crusades to destroy them and salt their fields. Let's stick to the facts. And that "lawyer" doesn't.
There's no need to put "lawyer" in quotation marks. Runkle is a practicing lawyer. Is IP his area of expertise? No. It is firearms and self defense. He is a lawyer, though. That you would so casually dismiss the likelihood of that when it is easy enough to verify hardly inspires in me the drive to see you as an expert of any sort.
How many of the avatars here who call themselves lawyers would provide verification of their being lawyers?
And you are completely missing the criticism of the use of the term "draft." Yes. Technically it was a draft. But anyone with even a morsel of wisdom can see Wizards is using the term to manipulate people into believing they never had any intention to activate that license until they had gotten "our" approval.
They are backpedalling and gaslighting. And what's funny about it all is that those who are falling for it have a history of the same in the way they engage with others.
Hi, actual lawyer here and I've been playing D&D for roughly 20 years. I'd like to add some insight to this debate about the use of the word draft. Before that I'd like to give a bit of info about where I stand on the current situation to preempt anyone saying I'm biased. Of course everyone will formulate their opinion with some amount of bias as that's simply how our brains function. I have not cancelled my sub nor do I intend to at this point in time. I use dndbeyond as a means of sharing content with the friends I play with and cancelling my sub would effectively cancel several ongoing campaigns. I also do not have a livelihood or content generation derived from playing D&D. That said, I'm not exactly pleased with WotC and Hasbro either and I understand the frustrations and concerns others have and their decisions to leave dndbeyond or perhaps the D&D IP altogether. I believe there are a lot of individuals at WotC with nothing but love and the best intentions for this game we all love dearly and I'm hopeful the company as a whole will learn from this situation and be more transparent with us in the future. I will credit the recent messaging as a step in that direction, but there are also still concerns. Presently, I'm reserving final judgment on the situation and how things shake out will determine if I continue supporting WotC in the future. Hopefully this dispels any attempts to attack the information I'm providing as biased in either direction, and with that out of the way lets get into the legal weeds!
Words can and often do have different meanings in the legal world than in the layman's world. Yes, draft applies to any contract or agreement until it is signed. That is because until it is signed it is not agreed to by the parties and can be changed. However, outside the legal world the term typically means something that is simply unfinished. Think about papers you submitted for classes. Draft meant and unfinished version, but you would never call the version submitted for a grade a draft even if you considered it unfinished. This is were the confusion comes in for a lot of people and that confusion is for WotC to clarify here. Most people don't use the legal definitions of words in day to day communication so when WotC uses the term in statements to the general public, it is reasonable for laypeople to assume the layman's use of the word. Those defending the use here as technically correct are right, but I think even they would admit being right on a technicality falls flat. Particularly given the tumultuous situation.
Additionally, although the term is technically correct others have correctly pointed out that the surrounding language implies something different even from the legal use of the term. Within the legal community we don't regularly use the term draft for contracts we intend someone to sign. That use comes up in legal arguments at court more than anything. This is where the technically correct part kind of adds to the deceptive nature. If my office has finalized an internal draft for presentation to a client or the other side we call it a final. this is common in the industry. A final does not mean it will be singed either, as people can and do change their minds at the last moment. But we consider them final because they are usually reached after feedback from the parties has resulted in the terms both parties intend to agree to.
That's the part of the statements people see as misleading or gaslighting. Based on the information included with the "drafts" WotC sent out, those versions were intended to be signed and there was no opportunity for feedback. They even included a deadline for signature, which is typical of final versions for other legal reasons around the making and accepting of offers. It was only after the outcry and backlash that community feedback became a part of the conversation.
Now I will say WotC has no obligation to seek community feedback in this instance. Lots of contracts are non-negotiable, we call them contracts of adhesion in the legal world. One everyone here would be familiar with is a cell phone contract. You don't get to negotiate with the carrier for better terms. You take what they offer or you go somewhere else. Similar to the use of the word draft, this is something WotC can do, but not necessarily something they should do. Obviously a lot of the backlash is do to the lack of feedback, which is understandable given how community feedback is largely what made D&D what it is today. I won't go into the weeds of whether WotC can actually restrict use of D&D from commercial use or homebrew licensing issues as that's a much broader and messier topic than can be discussed in a forum post and a lot of people have addressed that already. I'm only focusing on the use of the term draft.
In conclusion, yes the term draft is technically correct. However, it is misleading in the context of both the situation and the remainder of the statements calling them drafts. If you read both the statement from last week and the new open letter closely you'll see the use of the legal definition and layman's definition are actually being used interchangeably thus causing the confusion and discontent. One thing you learn practicing law is that while being technically correct can and does win in court, that win doesn't necessarily translate into a win outside the courtroom.
As an aside, I'd also like to address the comments about what field a lawyer works in being relevant here. While some lawyers do specialize in a field, all lawyers are charged with having the base level of competence to practice in the more general areas of law. Contracts is one of those areas and I can assure you that no matter what field of law someone practices they have to deal with contract law at some points. I bring this up because it I don't believe it is helpful to go back and forth discounting varying lawyers opinions based on what area they practice in. We lawyers are people at the end of the day and each of us has our own opinions and view points, and we regularly disagree with one another. It's kind of our job, but the difference of opinions is more usually nuanced than one lawyer being right and the other being wrong. Typically both are right in part and wrong in part because the law isn't as clear cut as people tend to think it is.
We generally call this gaslighting in the biz, it looks really bad on corporations hoping to retain paying customers. Just sayin
I mean, if that's the hill you want to die on fine, but they were still correct to use that label.
No. No they were not. Draft (n.) is the proper word for any technical document that is unsigned. That, however is not what is indicated in the phases "early draft" and "draft language" as indicated above. They are homonyms and using them interchangeably is improper and deceptive. Like switching between the scientific and non-scientific of the word Theory. It is NOT correct to do so.
I think ill trust the actual lawyers in these forums over you who stated the information about the word draft in another thread
Ian Runkle is a lawyer and he says their continuing to use the term "draft" is very much lying:
I will trust that living breathing lawyer more than avatars on a forum claiming to be lawyers, particularly when they have spent days now dismissing any criticism of Wizards, no matter how valid.
I...wouldn't trust that "living breathing lawyer" over the others. One's in text format, the other in video. As far as I can see, I have about equal reason to believe either is a lawyer - their word that they are one.
Actually, that's not true. I can show that he is being less than sincere:
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.
What Is a Draft Contract?
A draft contract is just an agreement that has not yet been finalized. The parties have not yet agreed on the exact terms and wording used in the draft.
That's what the OGL was. It was an agreement that was not been agreed to by all the parties, one that had been proposed by WotC. Were they trying to pressurise those people into accepting a crappy deal? Seems to be, and anyone who is pretending that WotC are angels are full of it. However, it was a draft. While I'd say certainly say that it was a poor word choice and had the wrong connotations for those not familiar with the esoteric vocabulary of contracts, it's not a lie. It's a lawyer forgetting to completely translate to everyday English.
As for the video itself...it reminds me of the kind of rants you have to endure when someone becomes vindictive. It was so full of spin and words being crammed down Kyle's throat that it was a surprise when he was actually referring to what was actually said in the email. It was ridiculous. The first section was enough to tell you how fast this was being spun - he spent several minutes...repeatedly pointing out that the email was from a company that was following a strategy? Like, they have MOs and processes and ways of doing things? I mean...really, Sherlock? The commentator was cynically trying to manipulate your view point. He was spinning it harder than either of WotC's announcements...and we all know that's saying something, right?
He then moved on from the fluff onto the meat of the announcement and again was shovelling words down Kyle's throat so fast it worried Einstein for a moment there. He's also being dishonest. Watch the segment about accessories for your owned content, for example. WotC, OGL or no, cannot stop you from making and selling dice. They cannot stop you from writing novels about your own worlds or characters and so forth. Even if they wanted to, they can't. This part of the announcement is just a reassurance that, to be honest, is just saying "you still have your rights and the OGL won't impinge on that". He spins it as WotC are going to sue you if you do write your own novels or you sell some dice. Like...think about it...how are they going to do that? Is every TTRPG going to go bust now, because no one is allowed to use d20s anymore? If that were even remotely possible, it would have been done by now. That's not how it works. They can stop you from using the ambersand logo (pretty sure it was never part of OGL anyway) on your products, they can (without the OGL giving you permission) stop you from setting your novel in Forgotten Realms et al and using their characters, but your own world? Your own characters? It would never get to court. It would be considered frivolous and they'd be getting into legal trouble themselves. They can't do it. But there's this alleged lawyer trying to persuade you that WotC is going to sue you.
Yeah.
Let's turn a fraction of the cynicism he would like you to have for WotC back towards him. He relies on views to get money. To get views, he needs to turn up your negative feelings, make you angry, rile you up so you keep watching and researching, sharing it. "WotC makes an announcement that they're trying to do better" doesn't generate views. "WotC is of the devil and this is how they're going to try and destroy" does. I've shown you two instances of where he's been dishonest with you in order to rile you up (there are more). Is it possible that he's quite willing to lie to you in order to get you to view his videos more and thereby generate money for him?
Is that really someone you want to listen to, rather than doing your own research and learning how these things work for yourself?
Look, I'm not WotC fan. I've spent more than one thread ranting about how WotC are not living up to expectations and how they've been treating us poorly. Any of the regulars could tell you that I'm not reticent to criticise them or call them out when I feel they're doing something wrong. The difference is that I'm also keen on sticking to the truth. I don't go on crusades to destroy them and salt their fields. Let's stick to the facts. And that "lawyer" doesn't.
There's no need to put "lawyer" in quotation marks. Runkle is a practicing lawyer. Is IP his area of expertise? No. It is firearms and self defense. He is a lawyer, though. That you would so casually dismiss the likelihood of that when it is easy enough to verify hardly inspires in me the drive to see you as an expert of any sort.
How many of the avatars here who call themselves lawyers would provide verification of their being lawyers?
And you are completely missing the criticism of the use of the term "draft." Yes. Technically it was a draft. But anyone with even a morsel of wisdom can see Wizards is using the term to manipulate people into believing they never had any intention to activate that license until they had gotten "our" approval.
They are backpedalling and gaslighting. And what's funny about it all is that those who are falling for it have a history of the same in the way they engage with others.
Hi, actual lawyer here and I've been playing D&D for roughly 20 years. I'd like to add some insight to this debate about the use of the word draft. Before that I'd like to give a bit of info about where I stand on the current situation to preempt anyone saying I'm biased. Of course everyone will formulate their opinion with some amount of bias as that's simply how our brains function. I have not cancelled my sub nor do I intend to at this point in time. I use dndbeyond as a means of sharing content with the friends I play with and cancelling my sub would effectively cancel several ongoing campaigns. I also do not have a livelihood or content generation derived from playing D&D. That said, I'm not exactly pleased with WotC and Hasbro either and I understand the frustrations and concerns others have and their decisions to leave dndbeyond or perhaps the D&D IP altogether. I believe there are a lot of individuals at WotC with nothing but love and the best intentions for this game we all love dearly and I'm hopeful the company as a whole will learn from this situation and be more transparent with us in the future. I will credit the recent messaging as a step in that direction, but there are also still concerns. Presently, I'm reserving final judgment on the situation and how things shake out will determine if I continue supporting WotC in the future. Hopefully this dispels any attempts to attack the information I'm providing as biased in either direction, and with that out of the way lets get into the legal weeds!
Words can and often do have different meanings in the legal world than in the layman's world. Yes, draft applies to any contract or agreement until it is signed. That is because until it is signed it is not agreed to by the parties and can be changed. However, outside the legal world the term typically means something that is simply unfinished. Think about papers you submitted for classes. Draft meant and unfinished version, but you would never call the version submitted for a grade a draft even if you considered it unfinished. This is were the confusion comes in for a lot of people and that confusion is for WotC to clarify here. Most people don't use the legal definitions of words in day to day communication so when WotC uses the term in statements to the general public, it is reasonable for laypeople to assume the layman's use of the word. Those defending the use here as technically correct are right, but I think even they would admit being right on a technicality falls flat. Particularly given the tumultuous situation.
Additionally, although the term is technically correct others have correctly pointed out that the surrounding language implies something different even from the legal use of the term. Within the legal community we don't regularly use the term draft for contracts we intend someone to sign. That use comes up in legal arguments at court more than anything. This is where the technically correct part kind of adds to the deceptive nature. If my office has finalized an internal draft for presentation to a client or the other side we call it a final. this is common in the industry. A final does not mean it will be singed either, as people can and do change their minds at the last moment. But we consider them final because they are usually reached after feedback from the parties has resulted in the terms both parties intend to agree to.
That's the part of the statements people see as misleading or gaslighting. Based on the information included with the "drafts" WotC sent out, those versions were intended to be signed and there was no opportunity for feedback. They even included a deadline for signature, which is typical of final versions for other legal reasons around the making and accepting of offers. It was only after the outcry and backlash that community feedback became a part of the conversation.
Now I will say WotC has no obligation to seek community feedback in this instance. Lots of contracts are non-negotiable, we call them contracts of adhesion in the legal world. One everyone here would be familiar with is a cell phone contract. You don't get to negotiate with the carrier for better terms. You take what they offer or you go somewhere else. Similar to the use of the word draft, this is something WotC can do, but not necessarily something they should do. Obviously a lot of the backlash is do to the lack of feedback, which is understandable given how community feedback is largely what made D&D what it is today. I won't go into the weeds of whether WotC can actually restrict use of D&D from commercial use or homebrew licensing issues as that's a much broader and messier topic than can be discussed in a forum post and a lot of people have addressed that already. I'm only focusing on the use of the term draft.
In conclusion, yes the term draft is technically correct. However, it is misleading in the context of both the situation and the remainder of the statements calling them drafts. If you read both the statement from last week and the new open letter closely you'll see the use of the legal definition and layman's definition are actually being used interchangeably thus causing the confusion and discontent. One thing you learn practicing law is that while being technically correct can and does win in court, that win doesn't necessarily translate into a win outside the courtroom.
Wow thanks for trying to inject a bit of nuance and calm reasoning into this conversation. I just happened to get back into D&D and I unfortunately came at a time when the community is all riled up. I personally favor the side that is pushing for WoTC to roll everything back, but many of these forum threads are nothing but keyboard warrior shouting matches. Arguments that go way longer than would ever be productive with no new information being given that could illuminate the issue more. I obviously don’t know if you are a real lawyer, but your sentiment on this topic echoes my own and I appreciate you said it better than I could.
In conclusion, yes the term draft is technically correct. However, it is misleading in the context of both the situation and the remainder of the statements calling them drafts. If you read both the statement from last week and the new open letter closely you'll see the use of the legal definition and layman's definition are actually being used interchangeably thus causing the confusion and discontent. One thing you learn practicing law is that while being technically correct can and does win in court, that win doesn't necessarily translate into a win outside the courtroom.
Bold was the point I was making, thank you. That's pretty much all I care about.
And yes, I fully understand that the "win outside the courtroom" is important to some. Again, if those folks want to die on that hill, quit D&D over that word, whatever, that is their right to do so. At this point, I'm not chasing after them and neither should WotC.
Yeah, calls for proof that individuals are lawyers are difficult to address. On one hand I get why you would want to know the person you're talking to is what they say they are, but on the other anything I provide you proving I'm a lawyer would reveal my identity and effectively dox myself.
In conclusion, yes the term draft is technically correct. However, it is misleading in the context of both the situation and the remainder of the statements calling them drafts. If you read both the statement from last week and the new open letter closely you'll see the use of the legal definition and layman's definition are actually being used interchangeably thus causing the confusion and discontent. One thing you learn practicing law is that while being technically correct can and does win in court, that win doesn't necessarily translate into a win outside the courtroom.
Bold was the point I was making, thank you. That's pretty much all I care about.
And yes, I fully understand that the "win outside the courtroom" is important to some. Again, if those folks want to die on that hill, quit D&D over that word, whatever, that is their right to do so. At this point, I'm not chasing after them and neither should WotC.
Considering this entire conversation and the posts by WotC are being made outside a courtroom, you have won a hollow victory.
In conclusion, yes the term draft is technically correct. However, it is misleading in the context of both the situation and the remainder of the statements calling them drafts. If you read both the statement from last week and the new open letter closely you'll see the use of the legal definition and layman's definition are actually being used interchangeably thus causing the confusion and discontent. One thing you learn practicing law is that while being technically correct can and does win in court, that win doesn't necessarily translate into a win outside the courtroom.
Bold was the point I was making, thank you. That's pretty much all I care about.
And yes, I fully understand that the "win outside the courtroom" is important to some. Again, if those folks want to die on that hill, quit D&D over that word, whatever, that is their right to do so. At this point, I'm not chasing after them and neither should WotC.
I don't think the word itself are what people are taking issue with. It seems that way because we simplify the matter to communicate more easily. That's why my post is as long as it is. Those upset with the use in the statements, including myself, are upset because it implies WotC intended to receive feedback from the beginning when it's clear that was not the original intent. This is why arguing over the definitions of the word misses the point and why I was hoping to provide the nuance being missed.
Yeah, calls for proof that individuals are lawyers are difficult to address. On one hand I get why you would want to know the person you're talking to is what they say they are, but on the other anything I provide you proving I'm a lawyer would reveal my identity and effectively dox myself.
No worries, if that was directed at me. I appreciate your contributions whatever your credentials are. I personally think that these volatile arguments are counterproductive to what I would want to see. I want to see a united pressure campaign against WoTC’s anticipated changes to the OGL and D&D as a product more generally. I think respectful debate and varying levels of skepticism regarding WoTC’s statements are healthy, but polarization on these issues only works to WoTC’s advantage as they seek to release the OGL version they want. Trying to divide and cause internal strife within a grass roots movement like the d&d community is an effective strategy for the organization in power. That organization could then seek to selectively appease different factions within that movement, causing even more internal strife. Whether intentional or not, WoTC’s most recent statement seem to be having that effect at least within these forums. However, I hope the rubber meets the road when official documents get released for scrutiny.
For some of us this is our third iteration of D&D Corporate messing up the game.
Some of us remember entire lines of products being dropped because of a personal struggle between Gygax and TSR. We lost tons of unique original settings and content that to this day WOTC is just sitting on - not publishing but then also not allowing anyone else to publish.
Then younger people will remember tons of other content being buried in the transition from 2e to 3e, especially the Forgotten Realms which condensed from an entire continent down to an area the size of the American Pacific Northwest. Again, it was one camp in WOTC against the other, and as a result D&D players lost out.
For a time third party publishers saved us from the poor vision of WOTC and lots of cool setting came out through third parties. WOTC focused on Adventurers League and standardizing play. That's fine. Sometimes I play AL myself but I prefer more homebrew campaigns.
So now we are in the third iteration of Corporate WOTC messing up the game. Some people have become devoted fans of WOTC - but make no mistakes and don't think you lot are any kind of "OG" D&D fans, lol. We've seen this all before. Some portion of the fan base will remain fans - until they realize they have to pay for everything again, but twice as expensive and less actual content.
The way we can divide D&D players today is quite simply this: A - the monolithic rules -based players and DM's, who believe D&D = WOTC
B - The system agnostic DM's and Players who believe the game is better if Corporate Politics stay out of it. Just publish your books and if they are good, we'll buy them. If they aren't, we'll go back to an older version or a different publisher
Yeah, calls for proof that individuals are lawyers are difficult to address. On one hand I get why you would want to know the person you're talking to is what they say they are, but on the other anything I provide you proving I'm a lawyer would reveal my identity and effectively dox myself.
No worries, if that was directed at me. I appreciate your contributions whatever your credentials are. I personally think that these volatile arguments are counterproductive to what I would want to see. I want to see a united pressure campaign against WoTC’s anticipated changes to the OGL and D&D as a product more generally. I think respectful debate and varying levels of skepticism regarding WoTC’s statements are healthy, but polarization on these issues only works to WoTC’s advantage as they seek to release the OGL version they want. Trying to divide and cause internal strife within a grass roots movement like the d&d community is an effective strategy for the organization in power. That organization could then seek to selectively appease different factions within that movement, causing even more internal strife. Whether intentional or not, WoTC’s most recent statement seem to be having that effect at least within these forums. However, I hope the rubber meets the road when official documents get released for scrutiny.
Not directed at you specifically, just in general cause multiple people were arguing about credentials after exhausting their substantive arguments. Your comment about not knowing for sure is a reasonable one and one everyone should use when interacting with strangers, especially online. I thought about addressing it in my post along with the comments about specializing in a legal field, but ended up leaving it out.
Some of us remember entire lines of products being dropped because of a personal struggle between Gygax and TSR. We lost tons of unique original settings and content that to this day WOTC is just sitting on - not publishing but then also not allowing anyone else to publish.
FYI - you are allowed to publish for their currently unused or underused settings - just not via the OGL. That's what DMsGuild is for. That's why people are publishing and selling content like Dark Sun psions, Mystara modules, Greyhawk modules, and more, all compatble with 5e, and none of it using the OGL.
I also wanted to address the concerns I'm seeing about a lawyer specializing in an area making their opinion more or less valid. I thought I had added this to my original post when I edited it, but it didn't seem to take.
Whether a lawyer specializes in a field isn't particularly relevant in terms of devaluing their opinion on something. Specializing in a field can boost a lawyers credibility on a topic in that field, but when it comes to contract law, all lawyers are familiar with the ins and outs. Contract law is a general area of practice that all lawyers are charged with having proficiency in. That's because contract law permeates all areas of practice. So arguments attempting to devalue one lawyer's opinion because they specialize in a certain area aren't helpful or persuasive to the conversation. Contracts I and II are required courses in all law schools because contract law is a key area on every state's bar exam.
Also, not all lawyers specialize in an area at all. Many if not most of us, myself included, are general practitioners. The training and teaching to become a lawyer is less about learning specific things in the law and more about learning the general methods of reading legal writings, understanding them, and formulating arguments. That skill carries through regardless of one's specialization. This is the focus rather than memorizing specific areas of law by design because the law changes sometimes daily. It would be malpractice to only learn an area of law once and then rely on that learning for the remainder of your career.
Those upset with the use in the statements, including myself, are upset because it implies WotC intended to receive feedback from the beginning when it's clear that was not the original intent.
How is it clear that wasn't the original intent?
The only direct quote that I'm aware of from a major third party, as opposed to rumors and games of telephone, is the one from Kickstarter that said, "We've got them down to 20 percent and are still negotiating"
We actually have no idea what WOTC's initial road map for all this was, because it got blown to smithereens after the leak
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sure, just know that if a person is enfranchised in the hobby enough to actually post here on these forums with any regularity, then they know enough about the hobby and the company structure that shepherds it to have fairly informed opinions. It is very highly likely that nobody here just blindly champions a corporation over the health of the game. If you are reading that sentiment from a post here, then it is equally likely that you are reading into the post a sentiment that you want to argue with or you are reading the statement of a troll that just wants to pick a fight with you.
So you don't need to "explain" to people (at least here) that WotC and Hasbro are problematic at best when it comes to the health of the hobby. We've been customers for quite some time (playing as long as you in my case). We are aware of their predilections. We are enfranchised enough to care to be here because we love the hobby, not the company. Maybe consider that.
They do, but they should at least bother to check whether or not what they're getting upset about is actually true. If a company goes out and says "We are NOT doing X", then it seems a bit ridiculous when people panic and proclaim that those people are going to go back on their word and what they just publicly promised to do.
Also, as always, people have the right to disagree with you and explain whether or not views fit with the actual facts of the situation.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Law is a big field encompassing many different specialties, and I would bet that firearms/self defense law and contract law don't have a lot of overlap. Many knowledge fields have specialties that don't translate, Law and medicine being two of the most known. Saying a firearms/self defense lawyer is inherently versed in contract law is like saying your Orthopedist is inherently qualified to do your brain surgery or vice versa.
I am not a lawyer, but a lawyer is not required to understand contract language and terminology, just familiarity with contracts. I am an architect, and I deal in contracts with my clients on a near daily basis, both in reviewing them, drafting them, and negotiating on them. There are around 5 on my desk (fyi, i am estimating, desk is a bit of a mess right now) right now as I sip my coffee.
Isn't backpedalling what we want them to do? as in backpedal their original drafted language to not be so draconian? Why are you criticizing them for that again? As for gaslighting, I personally feel that term has become overused to the point of near meaninglessness. No, what they are doing is using specific technical language to protect themselves in the event that this ever ends up in a lawsuit. Telling the truth in a technical manner is still truth, even if it isn't plain language, and so doesn't meet the criteria for actual gaslighting. By the way, being an aforementioned architect, I use the word "draft" in a third context regularly too; it is a thing in english for terms to have different meanings depending on context.
Finally, why is everyone acting like they are going after some poor creative who just wants to make a living? I hate to say it, but all of the 3PPs who would be most affected by this are also corporations acting in their own best interests. They have a lot to gain from keeping a royalty free agreement to use WotC's IP, so don't think their responses aren't written from that (also selfish) lens. WotC wrote a crappy license, and it leaked, and they should fix it; but remember that we are for the most part talking about negotiations between corporations, not between WotC and the actual single creatives, the vast majority of whom make so little money of this IP they wouldn't even have to report it to WotC under the new OGL.
They've (WotC/Hasbro) been proven untrustworthy and have been caught in, among other things, "exact words"isms recently. The whole disingenuous "draft" situation - maybe they can technically call 1.1 a draft, but the intent behind it was clearly not that it was an unfinished document presented for review.
So while it's good that they're denying the $30 subscriptions, not gating homebrew, etc. It remains the case that we have no reason to believe those leaks weren't at least partially rooted in fact - and may remain representative of how WotC has been operating.
Because other, verified information makes it clear they can't be trusted.
There's a difference between recognizing that information may not be the 100%, most literal truth - it was likely the perspective of a single individual, which means its likely also warped by perspective and opinion - and dismissing it as irrelevant.
Dueling conspiracy theories.
In the end, I suppose it was inevitable.
I put it in scare marksbecause all I have to go on is that you claim he is one, and he's either completely ignorant of how these things work or he's intentionally misleading you. I don't really care for either kind, and I'm not wasting my time digging for it. Whether he is one is pretty much irrelevant at this point, and what he's doing is unethical. He doesn't deserve the respect that comes with that title either way. I'm not claiming to be an expert, nor would I want you to take my word for gospel truth even if I were. I want you to think for yourself. He brought nothing to the table as a lawyer, he brought no specialist knowledge, and the one thing that, as a lawyer, he could have helped with, he got wrong and is easily shown to be wrong.
They don't have to. They're not saying "I'm a lawyer, so my opinion matters more than yours", unlike a certain someone. They're saying "I'm a lawyer and understand this vocabulary, this is what it means, which is verifiable for yourself". They're not asking you to take their opinion on the whole matter simply because they're a lawyer (like you're trying to do on behalf of this commentator), whether they're a lawyer is only tangentially related. I proved their point and I'm not even a lawyer - just someone who understands the nature of esoteric language and Google.
There you go putting words into their mouth. When did they say they were going to get our approval before implementing it as it was? Quote please? Because it certainly wasn't in the announcements. That's their remedy as they try to salvage the situation, no one is pretending that it was always part of their plan...apart from you.
That was the whole point, was it not? They wanted to implement OGL 1.1 and everyone didn't. They're not. Why are you complaining that they're doing what you wanted them to do?
What gaslighting? I saw plenty of it in that video you shared "WotC is saying here that they'll sue you for using your own rights, even though that's literally the opposite of what they're saying, and they couldn't even if they wanted to". They used the correct word...one that has been shown to you as being the correct one...that's not gaslighting.
The irony of this statement is palpable.
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.
To this I can only reiterate what was said before:
Hi, actual lawyer here and I've been playing D&D for roughly 20 years. I'd like to add some insight to this debate about the use of the word draft. Before that I'd like to give a bit of info about where I stand on the current situation to preempt anyone saying I'm biased. Of course everyone will formulate their opinion with some amount of bias as that's simply how our brains function. I have not cancelled my sub nor do I intend to at this point in time. I use dndbeyond as a means of sharing content with the friends I play with and cancelling my sub would effectively cancel several ongoing campaigns. I also do not have a livelihood or content generation derived from playing D&D. That said, I'm not exactly pleased with WotC and Hasbro either and I understand the frustrations and concerns others have and their decisions to leave dndbeyond or perhaps the D&D IP altogether. I believe there are a lot of individuals at WotC with nothing but love and the best intentions for this game we all love dearly and I'm hopeful the company as a whole will learn from this situation and be more transparent with us in the future. I will credit the recent messaging as a step in that direction, but there are also still concerns. Presently, I'm reserving final judgment on the situation and how things shake out will determine if I continue supporting WotC in the future. Hopefully this dispels any attempts to attack the information I'm providing as biased in either direction, and with that out of the way lets get into the legal weeds!
Words can and often do have different meanings in the legal world than in the layman's world. Yes, draft applies to any contract or agreement until it is signed. That is because until it is signed it is not agreed to by the parties and can be changed. However, outside the legal world the term typically means something that is simply unfinished. Think about papers you submitted for classes. Draft meant and unfinished version, but you would never call the version submitted for a grade a draft even if you considered it unfinished. This is were the confusion comes in for a lot of people and that confusion is for WotC to clarify here. Most people don't use the legal definitions of words in day to day communication so when WotC uses the term in statements to the general public, it is reasonable for laypeople to assume the layman's use of the word. Those defending the use here as technically correct are right, but I think even they would admit being right on a technicality falls flat. Particularly given the tumultuous situation.
Additionally, although the term is technically correct others have correctly pointed out that the surrounding language implies something different even from the legal use of the term. Within the legal community we don't regularly use the term draft for contracts we intend someone to sign. That use comes up in legal arguments at court more than anything. This is where the technically correct part kind of adds to the deceptive nature. If my office has finalized an internal draft for presentation to a client or the other side we call it a final. this is common in the industry. A final does not mean it will be singed either, as people can and do change their minds at the last moment. But we consider them final because they are usually reached after feedback from the parties has resulted in the terms both parties intend to agree to.
That's the part of the statements people see as misleading or gaslighting. Based on the information included with the "drafts" WotC sent out, those versions were intended to be signed and there was no opportunity for feedback. They even included a deadline for signature, which is typical of final versions for other legal reasons around the making and accepting of offers. It was only after the outcry and backlash that community feedback became a part of the conversation.
Now I will say WotC has no obligation to seek community feedback in this instance. Lots of contracts are non-negotiable, we call them contracts of adhesion in the legal world. One everyone here would be familiar with is a cell phone contract. You don't get to negotiate with the carrier for better terms. You take what they offer or you go somewhere else. Similar to the use of the word draft, this is something WotC can do, but not necessarily something they should do. Obviously a lot of the backlash is do to the lack of feedback, which is understandable given how community feedback is largely what made D&D what it is today. I won't go into the weeds of whether WotC can actually restrict use of D&D from commercial use or homebrew licensing issues as that's a much broader and messier topic than can be discussed in a forum post and a lot of people have addressed that already. I'm only focusing on the use of the term draft.
In conclusion, yes the term draft is technically correct. However, it is misleading in the context of both the situation and the remainder of the statements calling them drafts. If you read both the statement from last week and the new open letter closely you'll see the use of the legal definition and layman's definition are actually being used interchangeably thus causing the confusion and discontent. One thing you learn practicing law is that while being technically correct can and does win in court, that win doesn't necessarily translate into a win outside the courtroom.
As an aside, I'd also like to address the comments about what field a lawyer works in being relevant here. While some lawyers do specialize in a field, all lawyers are charged with having the base level of competence to practice in the more general areas of law. Contracts is one of those areas and I can assure you that no matter what field of law someone practices they have to deal with contract law at some points. I bring this up because it I don't believe it is helpful to go back and forth discounting varying lawyers opinions based on what area they practice in. We lawyers are people at the end of the day and each of us has our own opinions and view points, and we regularly disagree with one another. It's kind of our job, but the difference of opinions is more usually nuanced than one lawyer being right and the other being wrong. Typically both are right in part and wrong in part because the law isn't as clear cut as people tend to think it is.
Wow thanks for trying to inject a bit of nuance and calm reasoning into this conversation. I just happened to get back into D&D and I unfortunately came at a time when the community is all riled up. I personally favor the side that is pushing for WoTC to roll everything back, but many of these forum threads are nothing but keyboard warrior shouting matches. Arguments that go way longer than would ever be productive with no new information being given that could illuminate the issue more. I obviously don’t know if you are a real lawyer, but your sentiment on this topic echoes my own and I appreciate you said it better than I could.
Bold was the point I was making, thank you. That's pretty much all I care about.
And yes, I fully understand that the "win outside the courtroom" is important to some. Again, if those folks want to die on that hill, quit D&D over that word, whatever, that is their right to do so. At this point, I'm not chasing after them and neither should WotC.
Yeah, calls for proof that individuals are lawyers are difficult to address. On one hand I get why you would want to know the person you're talking to is what they say they are, but on the other anything I provide you proving I'm a lawyer would reveal my identity and effectively dox myself.
Considering this entire conversation and the posts by WotC are being made outside a courtroom, you have won a hollow victory.
I don't think the word itself are what people are taking issue with. It seems that way because we simplify the matter to communicate more easily. That's why my post is as long as it is. Those upset with the use in the statements, including myself, are upset because it implies WotC intended to receive feedback from the beginning when it's clear that was not the original intent. This is why arguing over the definitions of the word misses the point and why I was hoping to provide the nuance being missed.
No worries, if that was directed at me. I appreciate your contributions whatever your credentials are. I personally think that these volatile arguments are counterproductive to what I would want to see. I want to see a united pressure campaign against WoTC’s anticipated changes to the OGL and D&D as a product more generally. I think respectful debate and varying levels of skepticism regarding WoTC’s statements are healthy, but polarization on these issues only works to WoTC’s advantage as they seek to release the OGL version they want. Trying to divide and cause internal strife within a grass roots movement like the d&d community is an effective strategy for the organization in power. That organization could then seek to selectively appease different factions within that movement, causing even more internal strife. Whether intentional or not, WoTC’s most recent statement seem to be having that effect at least within these forums. However, I hope the rubber meets the road when official documents get released for scrutiny.
[QUOTED COMMENT REMOVED]
You need a subscription to use OTHER PEOPLE'S homebrew.
You have never needed a subscription to create YOUR OWN homebrew.
[REDACTED]
Please do not contact or message me.
For some of us this is our third iteration of D&D Corporate messing up the game.
Some of us remember entire lines of products being dropped because of a personal struggle between Gygax and TSR. We lost tons of unique original settings and content that to this day WOTC is just sitting on - not publishing but then also not allowing anyone else to publish.
Then younger people will remember tons of other content being buried in the transition from 2e to 3e, especially the Forgotten Realms which condensed from an entire continent down to an area the size of the American Pacific Northwest. Again, it was one camp in WOTC against the other, and as a result D&D players lost out.
For a time third party publishers saved us from the poor vision of WOTC and lots of cool setting came out through third parties. WOTC focused on Adventurers League and standardizing play. That's fine. Sometimes I play AL myself but I prefer more homebrew campaigns.
So now we are in the third iteration of Corporate WOTC messing up the game. Some people have become devoted fans of WOTC - but make no mistakes and don't think you lot are any kind of "OG" D&D fans, lol. We've seen this all before. Some portion of the fan base will remain fans - until they realize they have to pay for everything again, but twice as expensive and less actual content.
The way we can divide D&D players today is quite simply this:
A - the monolithic rules -based players and DM's, who believe D&D = WOTC
B - The system agnostic DM's and Players who believe the game is better if Corporate Politics stay out of it. Just publish your books and if they are good, we'll buy them. If they aren't, we'll go back to an older version or a different publisher
Not directed at you specifically, just in general cause multiple people were arguing about credentials after exhausting their substantive arguments. Your comment about not knowing for sure is a reasonable one and one everyone should use when interacting with strangers, especially online. I thought about addressing it in my post along with the comments about specializing in a legal field, but ended up leaving it out.
Again - if you insist on dying on that hill (metaphorically speaking that is), go right ahead.
FYI - you are allowed to publish for their currently unused or underused settings - just not via the OGL. That's what DMsGuild is for. That's why people are publishing and selling content like Dark Sun psions, Mystara modules, Greyhawk modules, and more, all compatble with 5e, and none of it using the OGL.
I also wanted to address the concerns I'm seeing about a lawyer specializing in an area making their opinion more or less valid. I thought I had added this to my original post when I edited it, but it didn't seem to take.
Whether a lawyer specializes in a field isn't particularly relevant in terms of devaluing their opinion on something. Specializing in a field can boost a lawyers credibility on a topic in that field, but when it comes to contract law, all lawyers are familiar with the ins and outs. Contract law is a general area of practice that all lawyers are charged with having proficiency in. That's because contract law permeates all areas of practice. So arguments attempting to devalue one lawyer's opinion because they specialize in a certain area aren't helpful or persuasive to the conversation. Contracts I and II are required courses in all law schools because contract law is a key area on every state's bar exam.
Also, not all lawyers specialize in an area at all. Many if not most of us, myself included, are general practitioners. The training and teaching to become a lawyer is less about learning specific things in the law and more about learning the general methods of reading legal writings, understanding them, and formulating arguments. That skill carries through regardless of one's specialization. This is the focus rather than memorizing specific areas of law by design because the law changes sometimes daily. It would be malpractice to only learn an area of law once and then rely on that learning for the remainder of your career.
How is it clear that wasn't the original intent?
The only direct quote that I'm aware of from a major third party, as opposed to rumors and games of telephone, is the one from Kickstarter that said, "We've got them down to 20 percent and are still negotiating"
We actually have no idea what WOTC's initial road map for all this was, because it got blown to smithereens after the leak
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)