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.
It's not JUST the VTT. It's also preventing the new OGL from being used as a shield for video games, apps, VR, AI, and god knows what else might emerge in the future that might use their content/IP. Those things can still exist and still use WotC content, but they need to go get a custom license to do so. That is reasonable.
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?
Seems like it would be pretty expensive on their end. Basically, you'd be asking WotC to hire sensitivity readers for you.
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.
You may be referring to the equitable concept of estopple. Additionally, most contracts state they bind the successors and assigns of the parties. That means the new owners of WotC would be bound by the agreement. Granted this agreement lets them change that part given it's language so the new owner could change it. That's where the equitable arguments come in.
Thank you for stating what so few believe. Our court systems are frustrating and there are certainly large scale issues like the justice system being stacked against minorities, but generally civil courts try to get it right and be as equitable as possible.
"(d)Severability.If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Wizards may declare the entire license void, either as between it and the party that obtained the ruling or in its entirety. Unless Wizards elects to do so, the balance of this license will be enforced as if that part which is unenforceable or invalid did not exist."
This doesn't sit too well with me... So you're telling me that at any point they don't like something about this license or can't enforce something they dislike they can just claim the entire thing as being void and null.
For a contract, any contract, to be valid, there are certain elements that must be in place. The exact list varies a bit; largely based on the type of contract. If these elements prove to not be in place, then the contract becomes unenforceable. If it's unenforceable, it's no longer a valid contract. This section is really pretty standard. It's the part that calls out that if something changes or a very particular aspect of the contract no longer lines up with reality, they may opt to void the license. In practice, this tends not to be a "Nope, we have to tear up the whole thing and undo all that we have done." because that would require a huge, all-encompassing change (Wizards is no longer a legal entity, D&D becomes a globally banned game, the Apocalypse renders all rule of law inconsequential, etc.) What's more likely to pop up is that a single party (individual or company) and Wizards part company because some aspect of the contract simply no longer applies to their original deal. It happens. Personally, I'm impressed that they leave the wiggle room in there for still opting to let the contract exist b/n themselves and a party by opting to (legally and likely with additional contracts) just ignore the one part that screwed things up b/n them.
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.
I'd agree there's valuable discussion around how much power WotC should have to regulate objectionable content. My problem is with getting too deep into the weeds of a specific example. In particular this orc one which has been talked to death.
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.
It's not JUST the VTT. It's also preventing the new OGL from being used as a shield for video games, apps, VR, AI, and god knows what else might emerge in the future that might use their content/IP. Those things can still exist and still use WotC content, but they need to go get a custom license to do so. That is reasonable.
Hey, fair enough. I made the assumption, rightly or wrongly, that most of those things would likely be covered under a unique agreement or fan content rather than the OGL, but you make a good point with this.
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?
Given how quickly things can blow up in the modern era (for an example, see....all this), I think an appeals process might be better suited (but maybe thats what you meant). That said, for all of the concerns being raised, any ruling they make on this will be subject to the court of public opinion just like this was if the creator chooses to make it known, which should keep the use of the clause at least somewhat reasonable.
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.
You may be referring to the equitable concept of estopple. Additionally, most contracts state they bind the successors and assigns of the parties. That means the new owners of WotC would be bound by the agreement. Granted this agreement lets them change that part given it's language so the new owner could change it. That's where the equitable arguments come in.
Thank you for stating what so few believe. Our court systems are frustrating and there are certainly large scale issues like the justice system being stacked against minorities, but generally civil courts try to get it right and be as equitable as possible.
It is well worth noting that Wizards is very cognizant of potential estoppel claims and has a long, long history of being scared of the very possibility of them. That possibility likely factored significantly into their decision to honor existing 1.0 rights perpetually. And that's not even counting the fact that Wizards has dozens upon dozens of Magic: the Gathering Cards they could make millions off of reprinting... but don't because they are (justifiably) terrified of the potential estoppel claims.
WotC solely deciding what's harmful etc. is a big fat gamble in the face of what their first proposal for an OGL change was - it doesn't show a great moral compass. Also needs further regulation/explanation.
Removing any right to sue or taking part in legal action for reasons (e. G. Authorship) is still a big nope and an open backdoor for them.
Not allowing VTT development of effects and animations is still just outright blocking competition.
Still trying to revoke OGL 1.0a... well there's enough videos on yt and threads in this forum to view.
There surely are more things to consider, but i'll save that for later, wehen im more awake and the survey is out.
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.
I'd agree there's valuable discussion around how much power WotC should have to regulate objectionable content. My problem is with getting too deep into the weeds of a specific example. In particular this orc one which has been talked to death.
I'm mostly still pushing back here to determine if his intentions are valid or if he is just trolling. If he is well intentioned the conversation can be steered back to the OGL, if not we expose it for what it is and ignore him moving forward. Thus far I'm leaning toward the latter, which I think comes through in my responses
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?
Not a terrible idea in theory, but it wouldn't solve people's issue with the clause, i.e. Wizards getting to decide whether your stuff is permissible or not. They want fixed, written, explicit standards because they want the decision out of the hands of people and into an objective statement that can be checked on or off.
The problem with that sort of stance has always, of course, been "if you give people an objective line that says "below this, you're not being hateful", people will take that as permission to ride right on that line and get as close to hateful as they legally can without remorse." It invalidates someone's ability to handle repeat bad-faith actors who stick to low-grade acts of bad faith and it ties that someone's hands when a situation nobody could've foreseen came up.
There is also the consideration that the way the world's going, if somebody came into charge of Wizards and started pulling down inclusive content, striking down beloved third-party publishers in pursuance of hateful rhetoric? The company would not survive. Look how badly the mere threat of legal wonkery hurt them this time. Actually going back on existing contracts for such a deplorable goal would be corporate suicide and everybody knows it.
My feedback will be that "offensive" is subjective. What one person finds to be perfectly acceptable might cause outrage in other circles. Removing someone's right to use the OGL because of an honest disagreement is unacceptable. WOTC themselves have had to re-release products due to them being "offensive" to some group.
Otherwise it looks good. Good job, guys. Your communication and transparency is appreciated.
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.
That's a good point. If someone has a Kanye-esque meltdown, you want to be able to cut ties.
While I do admit that this is a step in the right direction, it's clear to a lot of the community that this has shown that Wizards and Hasbro hate us as a community. As much as I can say that OGL 1.2 is a step in the right direction, I will not be resubscribing or playing D&D anymore.
While I do admit that this is a step in the right direction, it's clear to a lot of the community that this has shown that Wizards and Hasbro hate us as a community. As much as I can say that OGL 1.2 is a step in the right direction, I will not be resubscribing or playing D&D anymore.
You do you, but if WotC really did "hate" the community, then why are they even trying to address it's concerns?
They CANNOT deauthorize 1.0a. It will go to court and I will defnitely participate.
It will, and with Paizo it’s Washington State courts which are not friendly with companies that try to skirt intent and good faith contract laws. This could lead to Hasbro sustaining heavy financial losses in fines and/or lawsuit damages, especially with the intent posted as an official FAQ for a decade and a half stating any changes to 1.0a could be ignored.
Despite removing it from their website in 2022, there are hundreds of archives of it, which are admissible in court according to the US Federal Circuit courts as evidences. In this case of intent. If a lawyer wanted to take it a step further, one could argue given the circumstances, that removal of this official FAQ is also an attempt to destroy evidence as any lawyer who works in contract/licensing who passed the Bar would have to know about good will and intent precedent, seeing as those rules are older than Hasbro themselves.
Always good to get more (unofficial) legal opinions on the document. I hadn't caught the partial revocability thing, but I'm also not entirely certain it fully matters? What's important is ensuring that whatever deal you make content under cannot be changed on you retroactively, and then keeping them honest the same way we did this last few weeks if they get squirrelly again. I doubt we'll get Wizards to commit to a fully irrevocable license, no company's going to paint themselves into a corner that way if they can remotely help it, but it's good to be cognizant of.
Yeah, the Creative Commons thing for the rules/game system is more performative than not, but it also offers some extra assurance that Wizards won't try to argue the point even if the law says they really can't. Creators who don't engage with the SRD can point to the CC license and tell Wizards to get bent, even if not engaging with the SRD is apparently harder than Legal Eagle made it out to be.
While I do admit that this is a step in the right direction, it's clear to a lot of the community that this has shown that Wizards and Hasbro hate us as a community. As much as I can say that OGL 1.2 is a step in the right direction, I will not be resubscribing or playing D&D anymore.
You do you, but if WotC really did "hate" the community, then why are they even trying to address it's concerns?
Not sure what community that account with one post is talking about, tbh
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.
Great, stand your ground over there somewhere.
It's not JUST the VTT. It's also preventing the new OGL from being used as a shield for video games, apps, VR, AI, and god knows what else might emerge in the future that might use their content/IP. Those things can still exist and still use WotC content, but they need to go get a custom license to do so. That is reasonable.
Seems like it would be pretty expensive on their end. Basically, you'd be asking WotC to hire sensitivity readers for you.
You may be referring to the equitable concept of estopple. Additionally, most contracts state they bind the successors and assigns of the parties. That means the new owners of WotC would be bound by the agreement. Granted this agreement lets them change that part given it's language so the new owner could change it. That's where the equitable arguments come in.
Thank you for stating what so few believe. Our court systems are frustrating and there are certainly large scale issues like the justice system being stacked against minorities, but generally civil courts try to get it right and be as equitable as possible.
For a contract, any contract, to be valid, there are certain elements that must be in place. The exact list varies a bit; largely based on the type of contract.
If these elements prove to not be in place, then the contract becomes unenforceable. If it's unenforceable, it's no longer a valid contract.
This section is really pretty standard. It's the part that calls out that if something changes or a very particular aspect of the contract no longer lines up with reality, they may opt to void the license. In practice, this tends not to be a "Nope, we have to tear up the whole thing and undo all that we have done." because that would require a huge, all-encompassing change (Wizards is no longer a legal entity, D&D becomes a globally banned game, the Apocalypse renders all rule of law inconsequential, etc.)
What's more likely to pop up is that a single party (individual or company) and Wizards part company because some aspect of the contract simply no longer applies to their original deal.
It happens.
Personally, I'm impressed that they leave the wiggle room in there for still opting to let the contract exist b/n themselves and a party by opting to (legally and likely with additional contracts) just ignore the one part that screwed things up b/n them.
I'd agree there's valuable discussion around how much power WotC should have to regulate objectionable content. My problem is with getting too deep into the weeds of a specific example. In particular this orc one which has been talked to death.
Hey, fair enough. I made the assumption, rightly or wrongly, that most of those things would likely be covered under a unique agreement or fan content rather than the OGL, but you make a good point with this.
Given how quickly things can blow up in the modern era (for an example, see....all this), I think an appeals process might be better suited (but maybe thats what you meant). That said, for all of the concerns being raised, any ruling they make on this will be subject to the court of public opinion just like this was if the creator chooses to make it known, which should keep the use of the clause at least somewhat reasonable.
It is well worth noting that Wizards is very cognizant of potential estoppel claims and has a long, long history of being scared of the very possibility of them. That possibility likely factored significantly into their decision to honor existing 1.0 rights perpetually. And that's not even counting the fact that Wizards has dozens upon dozens of Magic: the Gathering Cards they could make millions off of reprinting... but don't because they are (justifiably) terrified of the potential estoppel claims.
WotC solely deciding what's harmful etc. is a big fat gamble in the face of what their first proposal for an OGL change was - it doesn't show a great moral compass. Also needs further regulation/explanation.
Removing any right to sue or taking part in legal action for reasons (e. G. Authorship) is still a big nope and an open backdoor for them.
Not allowing VTT development of effects and animations is still just outright blocking competition.
Still trying to revoke OGL 1.0a... well there's enough videos on yt and threads in this forum to view.
There surely are more things to consider, but i'll save that for later, wehen im more awake and the survey is out.
I'm mostly still pushing back here to determine if his intentions are valid or if he is just trolling. If he is well intentioned the conversation can be steered back to the OGL, if not we expose it for what it is and ignore him moving forward. Thus far I'm leaning toward the latter, which I think comes through in my responses
Not a terrible idea in theory, but it wouldn't solve people's issue with the clause, i.e. Wizards getting to decide whether your stuff is permissible or not. They want fixed, written, explicit standards because they want the decision out of the hands of people and into an objective statement that can be checked on or off.
The problem with that sort of stance has always, of course, been "if you give people an objective line that says "below this, you're not being hateful", people will take that as permission to ride right on that line and get as close to hateful as they legally can without remorse." It invalidates someone's ability to handle repeat bad-faith actors who stick to low-grade acts of bad faith and it ties that someone's hands when a situation nobody could've foreseen came up.
There is also the consideration that the way the world's going, if somebody came into charge of Wizards and started pulling down inclusive content, striking down beloved third-party publishers in pursuance of hateful rhetoric? The company would not survive. Look how badly the mere threat of legal wonkery hurt them this time. Actually going back on existing contracts for such a deplorable goal would be corporate suicide and everybody knows it.
Please do not contact or message me.
My feedback will be that "offensive" is subjective. What one person finds to be perfectly acceptable might cause outrage in other circles. Removing someone's right to use the OGL because of an honest disagreement is unacceptable. WOTC themselves have had to re-release products due to them being "offensive" to some group.
Otherwise it looks good. Good job, guys. Your communication and transparency is appreciated.
I also take issue with waiving the right to class action suits.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
A potentially helpful, and certainly insightful, breakdown:
https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-talk-about-d-d-s-updated-open-game-license-ogl-1-2-5b95fe8889b2
That's a good point. If someone has a Kanye-esque meltdown, you want to be able to cut ties.
While I do admit that this is a step in the right direction, it's clear to a lot of the community that this has shown that Wizards and Hasbro hate us as a community. As much as I can say that OGL 1.2 is a step in the right direction, I will not be resubscribing or playing D&D anymore.
You do you, but if WotC really did "hate" the community, then why are they even trying to address it's concerns?
It will, and with Paizo it’s Washington State courts which are not friendly with companies that try to skirt intent and good faith contract laws. This could lead to Hasbro sustaining heavy financial losses in fines and/or lawsuit damages, especially with the intent posted as an official FAQ for a decade and a half stating any changes to 1.0a could be ignored.
Despite removing it from their website in 2022, there are hundreds of archives of it, which are admissible in court according to the US Federal Circuit courts as evidences. In this case of intent. If a lawyer wanted to take it a step further, one could argue given the circumstances, that removal of this official FAQ is also an attempt to destroy evidence as any lawyer who works in contract/licensing who passed the Bar would have to know about good will and intent precedent, seeing as those rules are older than Hasbro themselves.
Always good to get more (unofficial) legal opinions on the document. I hadn't caught the partial revocability thing, but I'm also not entirely certain it fully matters? What's important is ensuring that whatever deal you make content under cannot be changed on you retroactively, and then keeping them honest the same way we did this last few weeks if they get squirrelly again. I doubt we'll get Wizards to commit to a fully irrevocable license, no company's going to paint themselves into a corner that way if they can remotely help it, but it's good to be cognizant of.
Yeah, the Creative Commons thing for the rules/game system is more performative than not, but it also offers some extra assurance that Wizards won't try to argue the point even if the law says they really can't. Creators who don't engage with the SRD can point to the CC license and tell Wizards to get bent, even if not engaging with the SRD is apparently harder than Legal Eagle made it out to be.
Please do not contact or message me.
Not sure what community that account with one post is talking about, tbh
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)