Racially discriminatory content is an unavoidable part of D&D lore. Orcs are evil. Elves and dwarves dislike and distrust each other. Is this racist? Technically, yes. It's also a catalyst for good roleplay. Racially discriminatory content is part of the history and lore of D&D.
is there any actual harm of this sort caused by any current D&D product? No, there isn't. Is it WotC's job to police such things? No, it isn't, but they've taken it upon themselves to do so anyway. "This is deeply important to us," they said in the post. This position is silly. Also, it's contradictory to the D&D universe they bought, of which they are supposedly stewards. They are too woke for their own good and probably can't be talked out of it. In the meantime, it leaves them a backdoor to railroad any D&D creator they wish.
Those discriminatory contents are being changed and many tables haven't incorporated them for decades. I've played many an orc and not one has been evil. Just because something is a part of history doesn't mean it has to be repeated.
There is actual harm from discriminatory content in D&D products. When discriminatory content in D&D is coded to reflect real world racism it perpetuates said real world racism and often excludes people from D&D. It's not about it being someone's job to police, it's about bettering our community and society. BTW it's entirely possible to include discriminatory characters in a campaign to be reflective of how life can be and present obstacles for players, but that doesn't have to be baked into the game itself.
Honestly my first read of your take is that of a troll or someone upset they aren't allowed to be racist, but I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and hope you are well intentioned.
You're certainly free to think whatever you want.
Back to something you said... In what way does dwarf-elf rivalry, or other in-game racial discrimination (such as orcs being untrusted or presumed as evil) exclude people in real life from D&D?
Given that Orcs and other races were originally intentionally coded to represent racist caricatures real world tribal nations, many who experience that racism in the real world are not comfortable seeing those representations in the game. And it wasn't as simple as you make it out to be that they were just seen in that way. It was literally coded into the game. You know that on at least some level. And yes, that excludes them. Take the recent concerns over the rerelease of the Hadozee. Members of the communities whose culture was intentionally misrepresented in a racist way when the Hadozee were created were understandably upset when that wasn't changed at first. And many said it was what kept them from the game in the past.
You might think they can just get over it, but if you were the target of the racism or discrimination I doubt you'd carry the same opinion.
No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.
So, here's the thing. This wording is subjective to WOTC. They could give passes to special "groups" that are partial to the Portland/Seattle lifestyle... and fail to enforce content some might find obscene or harassing. While at the same time crack down hard on other groups that publish something that many find completely fine, claiming WOTC finds it "hateful" or some other keyword.
On top of all that, the "engage in conduct" clause means that if you're a content creator and get in a fight on Twitter and angrily call someone an idiot, poof! There goes your income.
As a Seattleite, I feel attacked that you would lump me in with Portland.
But to the point, As I and other have said, definitions of acceptable behavior change over time, so there needs to be some flexibility. To quote Yurei, just don't be a cockwaffle, and you'll be OK.
Though you may have a point on "engage in conduct" That may a bit overbroad and could use some clarity. At least to me, who's a non-lawyer.
It allows them to cut ties with a 3PP developer if they get arrested for **** or other crimes, not just for publishing something bad. Kind of necessary in a world where more public and semi-public personas are being exposed as creeps.
They're effectively still trying to kill VTT in 2 ways.
Ensuring they are text only without animations or other aspects
killing 1.0a--1.0a allows you to use digital media (games, videos, etc.).
These two alone is enough to say no, but section 9e and 9g makes it even worst by signing your rights away.
The kicker... the severability clause allows them to "revoke" the irrevocable 1.2 if they wanted for any reason (there's a couple items that appear to be baked in to do so).
(not a lawyer, not legal advice).
They're not "text-only." They specifically state that not only can you use images, you can even use custom images. You just can't use theirs. And the animation thing is an attempt to draw a line between a fancy VTT (allowed) and a video game (not allowed).
Racially discriminatory content is an unavoidable part of D&D lore. Orcs are evil. Elves and dwarves dislike and distrust each other. Is this racist? Technically, yes. It's also a catalyst for good roleplay. Racially discriminatory content is part of the history and lore of D&D.
is there any actual harm of this sort caused by any current D&D product? No, there isn't. Is it WotC's job to police such things? No, it isn't, but they've taken it upon themselves to do so anyway. "This is deeply important to us," they said in the post. This position is silly. Also, it's contradictory to the D&D universe they bought, of which they are supposedly stewards. They are too woke for their own good and probably can't be talked out of it. In the meantime, it leaves them a backdoor to railroad any D&D creator they wish.
Those discriminatory contents are being changed and many tables haven't incorporated them for decades. I've played many an orc and not one has been evil. Just because something is a part of history doesn't mean it has to be repeated.
There is actual harm from discriminatory content in D&D products. When discriminatory content in D&D is coded to reflect real world racism it perpetuates said real world racism and often excludes people from D&D. It's not about it being someone's job to police, it's about bettering our community and society. BTW it's entirely possible to include discriminatory characters in a campaign to be reflective of how life can be and present obstacles for players, but that doesn't have to be baked into the game itself.
Honestly my first read of your take is that of a troll or someone upset they aren't allowed to be racist, but I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and hope you are well intentioned.
You're certainly free to think whatever you want.
Back to something you said... In what way does dwarf-elf rivalry, or other in-game racial discrimination (such as orcs being untrusted or presumed as evil) exclude people in real life from D&D?
There's about 100 threads on racial sterotyping. Maybe take this part of the discussion there, and stay focused on the ogl, here. Please.
Those threads do exist, but it is still relevant to the discussion here as the new OGL seeks to cover that kind of content.
No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.
So, here's the thing. This wording is subjective to WOTC. They could give passes to special "groups" that are partial to the Portland/Seattle lifestyle... and fail to enforce content some might find obscene or harassing. While at the same time crack down hard on other groups that publish something that many find completely fine, claiming WOTC finds it "hateful" or some other keyword.
On top of all that, the "engage in conduct" clause means that if you're a content creator and get in a fight on Twitter and angrily call someone an idiot, poof! There goes your income.
As a Seattleite, I feel attacked that you would lump me in with Portland.
But to the point, As I and other have said, definitions of acceptable behavior change over time, so there needs to be some flexibility. To quote Yurei, just don't be a cockwaffle, and you'll be OK.
Though you may have a point on "engage in conduct" That may a bit overbroad and could use some clarity. At least to me, who's a non-lawyer.
It's only a 3 hour drive.
The definition of acceptable behavior might change over time, but who gets to decide when and how? What does "cockwaffle" mean to WOTC? It's subjective.
... It terrifies them - to the point (as Yurei noted earlier) they have very strict company policies against workers looking at third party content.
Just to emphasize, here - this isn't a small thing. This isn't a "you get docked some pay and put on the discipline track" thing.
If Wizards catches one of its creative people provably looking at fan content, that creative is immediately fired. On the spot, with no chance to argue their case. And it's very possible that creative may never work for a large games publishing company again. Wizards - and not just Wizards, but Paizo, Kobold Press, Green Ronin, and all the rest - will not tolerate disobedience on this matter from their people, because their strict policy regarding fan content and the no-looking-at-thereof is one of their chief legal defenses against copyright dicktrolling. They can point to that clause in their employment contracts and say "See? Our people don't look at fan content, we couldn't have stolen it."
All this handwringing about content thievery is honestly kind of ridiculous. Wizards doesn't want your content. They never have. They just want to be able to publish their own content freely without a hundred homebrew guys swarming out of the woodwork saying "I ALREADY PUBLISHED A VERSION OF [X] GIVE ME MY MONEY". And if they truly, inarguably purloin your goods anyways? Again - the legal system does not care if a contract says "you can't sue us" if the contract itself is what's being disputed.
I would really like to hear how this OGL is supposed to affect the thriving OSR community. If the only acceptable SRD is the one for 5E and much of the OSR was based on what was available in the 3E SRD, then what happens to content published after OGL 1.0(a) is "de authorized"? I've been spending a lot more time playing OSE and similar games because 5E is just so World of Warcraft-y to me.
I could almost not even care about the new OGL if it didn't have an impact on the games I play these days, though I've still spend many hundreds on 5E stuff because it's convenient for one shots and because I wanted to support a company that seemed (until the last week) to actually care about the people who make them a success.
The more I think about it, the more this new version is so atrociously sneaky. The awful VTT section, the limits on rights to your work, the loopholes allowing wotc to change it later... I'm disgusted.
All WOTC cares about is getting everyone to use their tools and buy their products, and they want to scorch the earth around them so you don't have any other options. It's short sighted and motivated by pure greed.
To the community: please keep making your voices heard, in places that are visible. Do not let wotc take control of what they don't own in the first place. This hobby belongs to the community, not a corporation.
Once again WotC has shown their greed with this deceptive BS. OGL 1.0 CANNOT be revoked. Nice try. At this point they have proven they cannot be trusted on anything they state. Lets see the OGL 2.0. But I suspect that it will keep in the provisions to allow them to change the deal later as well as the other scummy things the rats steering the WotC ship love doing. I personally say we give no ground. They had their chance, now its ORC or nothing.
As a Seattleite, I feel attacked that you would lump me in with Portland.
But to the point, As I and other have said, definitions of acceptable behavior change over time, so there needs to be some flexibility. To quote Yurei, just don't be a cockwaffle, and you'll be OK.
Though you may have a point on "engage in conduct" That may a bit overbroad and could use some clarity. At least to me, who's a non-lawyer.
I'm reasonably sure the "engage in conduct" bit is Wizards giving itself an out if somebody decides to become a flaming hatemonger in the media, but yeah. It might be overreaching, especially if the conduct isn't limited to conduct relating to their OGL-covered business. That bit could probably do with some tightening up, because Wizards' product identity and IP aren't tied to someone being a cockwaffle on Twitter the same way their brand is tied to a concrete product that uses their system.
The other aspect that worries me a little: what if Hasbro/WotC leadership changes and the new leadership brings with it a stance on acceptable behavior that is opposite of the old leadership? They'd be allowed to pull licensing from people without recourse even if their materials were previously OKed. Maybe they could leave the vaguer language but allow for publishers to remedy their works in future publications or something. I just hate language that can be abused because you never know who may end up in charge down the road (and it's not always someone with noble intentions).
No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.
So, here's the thing. This wording is subjective to WOTC. They could give passes to special "groups" that are partial to the Portland/Seattle lifestyle... and fail to enforce content some might find obscene or harassing. While at the same time crack down hard on other groups that publish something that many find completely fine, claiming WOTC finds it "hateful" or some other keyword.
On top of all that, the "engage in conduct" clause means that if you're a content creator and get in a fight on Twitter and angrily call someone an idiot, poof! There goes your income.
As a Seattleite, I feel attacked that you would lump me in with Portland.
But to the point, As I and other have said, definitions of acceptable behavior change over time, so there needs to be some flexibility. To quote Yurei, just don't be a cockwaffle, and you'll be OK.
Though you may have a point on "engage in conduct" That may a bit overbroad and could use some clarity. At least to me, who's a non-lawyer.
It's only a 3 hour drive.
The definition of acceptable behavior might change over time, but who gets to decide when and how? What does "cockwaffle" mean to WOTC? It's subjective.
I'm well aware of the distance. Not far enough, if you ask me. I'm sure people from Portland would echo my feelings. It's a cute little rivalry we have.
Well, yes, it is subjective. Have you read the U.S. Supreme Court standards for what is considered obscene/pornographic? They, too are subjective. They say, and I'm paraphrasing here, its a work that doesn't have any artistic merit. But who defines what is artistic merit? The court sure didn't want to get into that. There's no way for any of it not to be subjective. Eventually, it has to come down to someone's opinion. Even if you pawn it off on some neutral third-party arbiter, it's going to be their opinion. We've been living in a subjective nation for quite a while now.
Also gonna point out that the handwringing about VTTs and Swanky Custom Animations and such and all the "OGL 1.2 KILLS VTTS FOREVER!" crap is not true. The OGL covers basic VTT functionality, i.e. a virtual tabletop. Anything further can be done, it just requires the VTT to enter into a custom agreement with Wizards rather than relying purely on OGL 1.2. Is such an agreement likely to be forthcoming? Probably not, but you also shouldn't need janky custom spell animations to use/make a VTT. Nor can they touch swanky-animation VTTs that don't use D&D content, like TaleSpire. If your VTT doesn't have a D&D plug-in that displays SRD content and is JUST miniatures on a virtual table? You can do whatever the bleedin' 'ell you want, and all those plug-ins are annoying anyways.
The thing that's boggled my mind most over these last weeks is how often I found myself in agreement with Yurei and Caerwyn.
The VTT was always the point of the new OGL. It's why they can backtrack on nearly everything from 1.1 and still be fine; 3PP/kickstarters/VTTs represented a very low revenue stream (at least at the $750k or higher threshold). Controlling the flow of the economy within the TTRPG space was more critical; push money towards their product. To do that, minimize other options.
Ultimately the name if the game for the next iteration of DnD is going to be monetization. If WotC can get past this PR nightmare and actually present a high value VTT that effectively targets the player population (vs the DM) with micro transactions that are desirable, all this will have been worthwhile to Hasbro/WotC. I think the thing that should be stressing the creative and executive team now is that they absolutely MUST deliver on an incredible VTT experience that pulls a big portion of that lost market share back to them.
Based upon the quality of their last few products, I would be worried too.
I'm also a little uncomfortable with WotC being arbiters, but I doubt anything that would offend the current social climate and draw the ire of WotC would be published successfully anyway.
I sincerely hope that everyone takes time on the survey tomorrow to emphasize that those collaborative creators that spoke up against OGL 1.1 should not be punished for their stance. They helped leverage the situation to something that I think may better meet WotC's future financial needs and meet the community's expectations.
Hells no to the VTT policy ban on animated effects. It's like they're specifically calling out the foundry vtt automated animations mod for being too awesome.
I wonder whether this means they don't intend to have animations on their VTT so they're making sure no one can be better than them or whether they intend to have animations and want to ensure they're the only ones allowed to use them? Either way screw that that monopolistic noise. If they want to win the VTT race they can spend some of those billions of dollars in revenue and make one that provides more features than existing options built by tiny dev teams with help from volunteers.
The other aspect that worries me a little: what if Hasbro/WotC leadership changes and the new leadership brings with it a stance on acceptable behavior that is opposite of the old leadership? They'd be allowed to pull licensing from people without recourse even if their materials were previously OKed. Maybe they could leave the vaguer language but allow for publishers to remedy their works in future publications or something. I just hate language that can be abused because you never know who may end up in charge down the road (and it's not always someone with noble intentions).
I don't know the name for it, but the law does actually provide for this. If an agreement has stood for a long time, then somebody comes in and tries to upend the deal in a manner everybody would consider unfair, there's legal precedent for saying "you're not allowed to do your contractee like that." I don't know if it would apply, but the court system is not (always) as myopic and unfair as people make it out to be.
Wizards doesn't want your content. They never have.
This part here can't be stressed enough.
Why? I've seen content in a 3pp. Rules on how to do something. Then a new book like Tasha's comes out, and there's a version of those rules there. A good idea is a good idea. I don't believe Yurei in saying that WOTC polices their creatives like that. If they can't find inspiration from the community, DnD would be a creatively dry product. There are only so many creatives they can churn through without being able to find inspiration from the outside world.
Wizards doesn't want your content. They never have.
This part here can't be stressed enough.
This strikes me as totally irrelevant. The point of a contract is not to establish what a party wants - it’s to establish what all parties can and cannot do.
Gonna note that the VTT stuff is only for services you render and only when the animations are specific to their stuff. If you made animations and just use them for your own game, or the animations are not specific to the D&D stuff , then they're perfectly fine.
This isn't much different than anywhere else and is all above board and expected.
I.e.: Your VTT releases animation packs for generic "magical spark" to be manually applied to what you need = OK. You release a specific "Magic Missile" spell animation = Not OK.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I had an idea about the objectionable content clause: what if they had an option for a review process. If you go through it and they give the OK, you're safe and they can't pull your work in the future/will have a chance to edit your work if their guidelines change. If you don't go through review, they retain the right to pull your license completely if you publish something they find objectionable. Thoughts?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Given that Orcs and other races were originally intentionally coded to represent racist caricatures real world tribal nations, many who experience that racism in the real world are not comfortable seeing those representations in the game. And it wasn't as simple as you make it out to be that they were just seen in that way. It was literally coded into the game. You know that on at least some level. And yes, that excludes them. Take the recent concerns over the rerelease of the Hadozee. Members of the communities whose culture was intentionally misrepresented in a racist way when the Hadozee were created were understandably upset when that wasn't changed at first. And many said it was what kept them from the game in the past.
You might think they can just get over it, but if you were the target of the racism or discrimination I doubt you'd carry the same opinion.
It allows them to cut ties with a 3PP developer if they get arrested for **** or other crimes, not just for publishing something bad. Kind of necessary in a world where more public and semi-public personas are being exposed as creeps.
They're not "text-only." They specifically state that not only can you use images, you can even use custom images. You just can't use theirs. And the animation thing is an attempt to draw a line between a fancy VTT (allowed) and a video game (not allowed).
Those threads do exist, but it is still relevant to the discussion here as the new OGL seeks to cover that kind of content.
It's only a 3 hour drive.
The definition of acceptable behavior might change over time, but who gets to decide when and how? What does "cockwaffle" mean to WOTC? It's subjective.
Just to emphasize, here - this isn't a small thing. This isn't a "you get docked some pay and put on the discipline track" thing.
If Wizards catches one of its creative people provably looking at fan content, that creative is immediately fired. On the spot, with no chance to argue their case. And it's very possible that creative may never work for a large games publishing company again. Wizards - and not just Wizards, but Paizo, Kobold Press, Green Ronin, and all the rest - will not tolerate disobedience on this matter from their people, because their strict policy regarding fan content and the no-looking-at-thereof is one of their chief legal defenses against copyright dicktrolling. They can point to that clause in their employment contracts and say "See? Our people don't look at fan content, we couldn't have stolen it."
All this handwringing about content thievery is honestly kind of ridiculous. Wizards doesn't want your content. They never have. They just want to be able to publish their own content freely without a hundred homebrew guys swarming out of the woodwork saying "I ALREADY PUBLISHED A VERSION OF [X] GIVE ME MY MONEY". And if they truly, inarguably purloin your goods anyways? Again - the legal system does not care if a contract says "you can't sue us" if the contract itself is what's being disputed.
Please do not contact or message me.
I would really like to hear how this OGL is supposed to affect the thriving OSR community. If the only acceptable SRD is the one for 5E and much of the OSR was based on what was available in the 3E SRD, then what happens to content published after OGL 1.0(a) is "de authorized"? I've been spending a lot more time playing OSE and similar games because 5E is just so World of Warcraft-y to me.
I could almost not even care about the new OGL if it didn't have an impact on the games I play these days, though I've still spend many hundreds on 5E stuff because it's convenient for one shots and because I wanted to support a company that seemed (until the last week) to actually care about the people who make them a success.
The more I think about it, the more this new version is so atrociously sneaky. The awful VTT section, the limits on rights to your work, the loopholes allowing wotc to change it later... I'm disgusted.
All WOTC cares about is getting everyone to use their tools and buy their products, and they want to scorch the earth around them so you don't have any other options. It's short sighted and motivated by pure greed.
To the community: please keep making your voices heard, in places that are visible. Do not let wotc take control of what they don't own in the first place. This hobby belongs to the community, not a corporation.
Once again WotC has shown their greed with this deceptive BS. OGL 1.0 CANNOT be revoked. Nice try. At this point they have proven they cannot be trusted on anything they state. Lets see the OGL 2.0. But I suspect that it will keep in the provisions to allow them to change the deal later as well as the other scummy things the rats steering the WotC ship love doing. I personally say we give no ground. They had their chance, now its ORC or nothing.
The other aspect that worries me a little: what if Hasbro/WotC leadership changes and the new leadership brings with it a stance on acceptable behavior that is opposite of the old leadership? They'd be allowed to pull licensing from people without recourse even if their materials were previously OKed. Maybe they could leave the vaguer language but allow for publishers to remedy their works in future publications or something. I just hate language that can be abused because you never know who may end up in charge down the road (and it's not always someone with noble intentions).
I'm well aware of the distance. Not far enough, if you ask me. I'm sure people from Portland would echo my feelings. It's a cute little rivalry we have.
Well, yes, it is subjective. Have you read the U.S. Supreme Court standards for what is considered obscene/pornographic? They, too are subjective. They say, and I'm paraphrasing here, its a work that doesn't have any artistic merit. But who defines what is artistic merit? The court sure didn't want to get into that. There's no way for any of it not to be subjective. Eventually, it has to come down to someone's opinion. Even if you pawn it off on some neutral third-party arbiter, it's going to be their opinion. We've been living in a subjective nation for quite a while now.
Also gonna point out that the handwringing about VTTs and Swanky Custom Animations and such and all the "OGL 1.2 KILLS VTTS FOREVER!" crap is not true. The OGL covers basic VTT functionality, i.e. a virtual tabletop. Anything further can be done, it just requires the VTT to enter into a custom agreement with Wizards rather than relying purely on OGL 1.2. Is such an agreement likely to be forthcoming? Probably not, but you also shouldn't need janky custom spell animations to use/make a VTT. Nor can they touch swanky-animation VTTs that don't use D&D content, like TaleSpire. If your VTT doesn't have a D&D plug-in that displays SRD content and is JUST miniatures on a virtual table? You can do whatever the bleedin' 'ell you want, and all those plug-ins are annoying anyways.
Please do not contact or message me.
The thing that's boggled my mind most over these last weeks is how often I found myself in agreement with Yurei and Caerwyn.
The VTT was always the point of the new OGL. It's why they can backtrack on nearly everything from 1.1 and still be fine; 3PP/kickstarters/VTTs represented a very low revenue stream (at least at the $750k or higher threshold). Controlling the flow of the economy within the TTRPG space was more critical; push money towards their product. To do that, minimize other options.
Ultimately the name if the game for the next iteration of DnD is going to be monetization. If WotC can get past this PR nightmare and actually present a high value VTT that effectively targets the player population (vs the DM) with micro transactions that are desirable, all this will have been worthwhile to Hasbro/WotC. I think the thing that should be stressing the creative and executive team now is that they absolutely MUST deliver on an incredible VTT experience that pulls a big portion of that lost market share back to them.
Based upon the quality of their last few products, I would be worried too.
I'm also a little uncomfortable with WotC being arbiters, but I doubt anything that would offend the current social climate and draw the ire of WotC would be published successfully anyway.
I sincerely hope that everyone takes time on the survey tomorrow to emphasize that those collaborative creators that spoke up against OGL 1.1 should not be punished for their stance. They helped leverage the situation to something that I think may better meet WotC's future financial needs and meet the community's expectations.
Hells no to the VTT policy ban on animated effects. It's like they're specifically calling out the foundry vtt automated animations mod for being too awesome.
I wonder whether this means they don't intend to have animations on their VTT so they're making sure no one can be better than them or whether they intend to have animations and want to ensure they're the only ones allowed to use them? Either way screw that that monopolistic noise. If they want to win the VTT race they can spend some of those billions of dollars in revenue and make one that provides more features than existing options built by tiny dev teams with help from volunteers.
I don't know the name for it, but the law does actually provide for this. If an agreement has stood for a long time, then somebody comes in and tries to upend the deal in a manner everybody would consider unfair, there's legal precedent for saying "you're not allowed to do your contractee like that." I don't know if it would apply, but the court system is not (always) as myopic and unfair as people make it out to be.
Please do not contact or message me.
Why? I've seen content in a 3pp. Rules on how to do something. Then a new book like Tasha's comes out, and there's a version of those rules there. A good idea is a good idea. I don't believe Yurei in saying that WOTC polices their creatives like that. If they can't find inspiration from the community, DnD would be a creatively dry product. There are only so many creatives they can churn through without being able to find inspiration from the outside world.
This strikes me as totally irrelevant. The point of a contract is not to establish what a party wants - it’s to establish what all parties can and cannot do.
Gonna note that the VTT stuff is only for services you render and only when the animations are specific to their stuff. If you made animations and just use them for your own game, or the animations are not specific to the D&D stuff , then they're perfectly fine.
This isn't much different than anywhere else and is all above board and expected.
I.e.: Your VTT releases animation packs for generic "magical spark" to be manually applied to what you need = OK. You release a specific "Magic Missile" spell animation = Not OK.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I had an idea about the objectionable content clause: what if they had an option for a review process. If you go through it and they give the OK, you're safe and they can't pull your work in the future/will have a chance to edit your work if their guidelines change. If you don't go through review, they retain the right to pull your license completely if you publish something they find objectionable. Thoughts?