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.
Thank you for this explanation. I am pretty new to D&D and was not plugged in during the Hadozee fiasco (though I heard of it). It still does not make sense to me, but thank you for trying.
They're clowns for offering the game mechanics under Creative Commons license. The game mechanics are already and have always been free to use under federal law as they can't be protected as intellectual property. Next they'll tell us we're free to breathe air while playing their game. Such a benevolent company!
I get the distinct feeling the rules aren't in place to stop every possible conceivable instance of animated whatsabangles in third-party VTTs. Prosecuting that would take every hour and dollar Wotsee has. I'm figuring the rule is in place to stop third-party VTTs from directly integrating that crap into their core product and using it to boost their sales, advertising "PLAY D&D LIKE YOU'VE NEVER PLAYED IT BEFORE" and trying to glam people with their distracting and completely unnecessary bells and whistles.
Modders making crap they offer as free share-alike junk isn't really OGL anyways, it's probably Fan Content policy, and it's also likely beneath Wizards' notice or give-a-****s. They just don't want a VTT turning itself into eighty percent of a D&D video game without permission and proper licensing.
I get the distinct feeling the rules aren't in place to stop every possible conceivable instance of animated whatsabangles in third-party VTTs. Prosecuting that would take every hour and dollar Wotsee has. I'm figuring the rule is in place to stop third-party VTTs from directly integrating that crap into their core product and using it to boost their sales, advertising "PLAY D&D LIKE YOU'VE NEVER PLAYED IT BEFORE" and trying to glam people with their distracting and completely unnecessary bells and whistles.
Modders making crap they offer as free share-alike junk isn't really OGL anyways, it's probably Fan Content policy, and it's also likely beneath Wizards' notice or give-a-****s. They just don't want a VTT turning itself into eighty percent of a D&D video game without permission and proper licensing.
I get the distinct feeling the rules aren't in place to stop every possible conceivable instance of animated whatsabangles in third-party VTTs. Prosecuting that would take every hour and dollar Wotsee has. I'm figuring the rule is in place to stop third-party VTTs from directly integrating that crap into their core product and using it to boost their sales, advertising "PLAY D&D LIKE YOU'VE NEVER PLAYED IT BEFORE" and trying to glam people with their distracting and completely unnecessary bells and whistles.
Modders making crap they offer as free share-alike junk isn't really OGL anyways, it's probably Fan Content policy, and it's also likely beneath Wizards' notice or give-a-****s. They just don't want a VTT turning itself into eighty percent of a D&D video game without permission and proper licensing.
Like I say, I'm glad you enjoy playing your way and it works for you, and that the OGL isn't affecting anything you care about. More power to you! I don't think it's necessary to try and put down other peoples preferences when it comes to games of make believe, we all have our own tolerance for what we think adds or distracts from the experience. Whatever you decide for your table is best for your table, same as any other.
I'm the guy actively defending wizards in my various DnD servers. I want to see them do well. I've invested a large amount of money in the beyond ecosystem. I do not want to jump ship as it means I've burnt a not insignificant amount of funds. I want to see them integrate a fully featured VTT right here, so nobody has to look anywhere else.
But I don't want to see them engaging in a cold war with their collaborators, and shutting down the competition with litigation. That's not good for anyone.
Like I say, if my use case and my creator friends use cases aren't compatible with the future of DnD, it's disappointing. It's a true lose lose scenario.
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.
Thank you for this explanation. I am pretty new to D&D and was not plugged in during the Hadozee fiasco (though I heard of it). It still does not make sense to me, but thank you for trying.
You're welcome and I hope my initial thoughts were wrong and you were genuinely seeking understanding. The D&D community certainly has some troubles in it's past, but we can grow to overcome them
In all honesty, I really like the new terms for the OGL. To me at least, it's shocking that there is still so much hate for the contract.
It's way better than the previous license, and this time, it is actually irrevocable in the sense of the word that a non-lawyer would use.
I find it kinda funny that I've been agreeing with Yurei so much lately. This almost never happens, something must be off. :)
The amount of progress we've made is absolutely amazing, and it would be nice if that aspect of things were better recognized. WotC is listening - even if they're stubbornly refusing to address what many people think is the single really important element.
If they'd abandon de-authorizing 1.0a, I think 1.2 would be an decent starting point for refinement.
I just don't buy their whole 'we have to deauthorize 1.2' angle. They don't have to - they just don't want it out there for people to use to make video games, or publish VTT material under going forward (inferred from what they're most particular about elsewhere in the document).
They're clowns for offering the game mechanics under Creative Commons license. The game mechanics are already and have always been free to use under federal law as they can't be protected as intellectual property. Next they'll tell us we're free to breathe air while playing their game. Such a benevolent company!
It's stagecraft, yes, but it's also a very public assurance that there's no way they can try to make a court case out of someone using the material, thus meaning any future attempt to do so would literally get thrown out as soon as the lawyers tried to bring the case to the courts.
Then, he's a real world example to work with. Foundry VTT itself has only the SRD as part of their 5e system. Any none SRD content you need to input manually.
External creators then create animations for spells, which can be used as macros. Most spells in the PHB have been animated by this point.
Further creators then make modules, that automatically trigger the macro, calling the originally created animation, when you click the "Magic Missiles" button on your character sheet.
Under this OGL, that wouldn't be permitted, making Foundry (if you use those modules) less attractive, and the asset creators work useless, and the module creators work illegal.
That's just one example of hundreds of small creators who have grown grass roots around VTT's, especially over the last two years, who are now concerned that they will be unable to support 5e going forwards.
I don't think this would actually impact Foundry. I haven't used Foundry in a little over a year so I may be misremembering, but to my knowledge the official Foundry modules are just the rules and if you buy some adventures the associated maps, characters, and etc. All of the animation stuff I used back then were fan made mods, and I don't think the OGL could stop that even if it wanted to. I haven't looked into this specific issue much so this is just a spitball take as it were, but it fits with my understanding of the laws generally.
They're clowns for offering the game mechanics under Creative Commons license. The game mechanics are already and have always been free to use under federal law as they can't be protected as intellectual property. Next they'll tell us we're free to breathe air while playing their game. Such a benevolent company!
It's stagecraft, yes, but it's also a very public assurance that there's no way they can try to make a court case out of someone using the material, thus meaning any future attempt to do so would literally get thrown out as soon as the lawyers tried to bring the case to the courts.
I'd equate it to the ribbon abilities subclasses get. Doesn't mean much, but it's nice.
They're clowns for offering the game mechanics under Creative Commons license. The game mechanics are already and have always been free to use under federal law as they can't be protected as intellectual property. Next they'll tell us we're free to breathe air while playing their game. Such a benevolent company!
It's stagecraft, yes, but it's also a very public assurance that there's no way they can try to make a court case out of someone using the material, thus meaning any future attempt to do so would literally get thrown out as soon as the lawyers tried to bring the case to the courts.
I'd equate it to the ribbon abilities subclasses get. Doesn't mean much, but it's nice.
Basically; it might help smooth over/speed up the process if it ever came up, but it's true that it is not an actual concession. But, as I've said before, I really don't give a darn if WotC does a few face saving bits like that along the way so long as we get a solid OGL at the end.
It seems even worse than that. As you said, Foundry is using the 5E rules SRD 5.0. It seems the new OGL will be invalidating all content prior to SRD 5.1, which would mean ALL older versions currently in use (and by old, I include the current one) will be null and void and foundry would be forced to not support them.
The current SRD is actually 5.1 (appears to have been 5.1 since 2016, presumably 5.0 was the 2014 SRD), so this is in fact intended to apply to new 5th edition stuff going forward.
What this OGL means for the 3.0 and 3.5 SRDs is not clear and should be cleaned up.
my biggest concern is the part about "hateful" content... who decides whats hateful and whats not?
i mean if you ask a Tibetan Monk he would say that being able to hurt others in the game is "hateful"
As a lot of people have said, given that there are literally active court cases of TTRPG producers slapping down people who tried to publish hate content under their license, this isn't an imaginary issue. And, unfortunately, there's no universal ruler/identification guide for "hateful", so you're gonna have to trust someone's judgement at the end of the day. I'd say the community will be the ones who have to keep WotC honest, and the past few weeks suggest we've got a fair shake at that if they really try to move beyond the pale.
my biggest concern is the part about "hateful" content... who decides whats hateful and whats not?
i mean if you ask a Tibetan Monk he would say that being able to hurt others in the game is "hateful"
They do - that parts super clear.
Which wouldn't be a total dealbreaker if they didn't have a recent history of shady, anti-competitive behavior and instead had a history of being reliable and opposing actually hateful behavior.
At what point did 'hateful horrible products' ever appear? That sounds more like a strawman argument than anything, not to mention that OGL 1.2 just gives WotC a very big stick to hit 3rd party creators with for any reason whatsoever they please, considering the wording specifically states WotC's judgement is final, without any option for dissent or appeal. Even if you get 30 days to fix the issue, they can just say thati's not good enough and pull the license. That's a massive risk to sign in on as a 3rd party.
If they keep 1.0a, and open up 1.2 for anyone willing to sign in, it would take a lot of the heat out of the entire discussion.
Also, if anybody has a plan to to defraud thousands of people already, an OGL isn't going to stop them anyway.
The fact that hateful content hasn't appeared doesn't mean it won't. It just means they dodged a bullet.
The same guardrails that have always prevented it still exist.
It'd be near impossible to publish, near impossible to find anyone to sell or carry, and the community would come down on it hard.
Guardrails are nice, but not as nice as a legally binding agreement. As I said, they've been lucky, they don't want to rely on luck anymore.
And its child's play to put up a website and publish whatever you want. People will find it.
If you're hiding stuff on the Darkweb or a .ru website because it isn't acceptable anywhere else, you don't care whether you have a legitimate license for what you're distributing.
Right, because I certainly couldn't jump on Google and find a couple hundred webpages spouting about a 100 different flavors of hate in less than 1 second.
You sure can. You think those folks care if their custom DnD content isn't published under the OGL? Or that their sites aren't hosted on the shadiest, least reputable, give-no-craps hosting services available?
So, because some people might get around the policy, Wizards shouldn't bother having one?
I mean, I get not wanting to trust Wizards judgment in this. They've demonstrated that we need to take a close look at what they do. But if we're not trusting Wizards, it seems like the alternative for this kind of thing is to trust every person who is now or ever will play D&D. Just operate on the honor system. Personally, I'd rather have one entity to look at. And Wizards, for its faults, is predictable. We've seen this week that the community can force them to change, they have a clear motive (profit) and will respond when that's threatened.
Probably, I won't agree with all their decisions. Probably, no one will. But it's their decision to make, and then we have a clear responsible party whose feet can be held to the fire.
Moreover, pragmatically, this is not one you're going to win. You can put you don't like this phrase in the feedback tomorrow, and I encourage everyone who feels that way to do so. Make your voice heard. But, whatever else they may have obfuscated, they've been clear from the start that this was one of their goals. Maybe, if people present some rational arguments, they may make some tweaks to it, but in broad terms, this is going forward. If you want to spend your time tilting at this windmill, have at it. And if that's the reason you stop playing, then, well, that will be your choice.
Yeah, it's close, in the sense that a person with a single bullet hole in their forehead is almost still alive.
Because there seems to be confusion over why deauthorization terms aren't acceptable: Creators of content under OGL 1.0a need to be able to update and iterate on that content, according to the terms and spirit of the original license. Full stop. It's not enough to be 'graciously permitted' by Wizards to continue to publish obsolete versions of products -- not when Wizards themselves previously established creators wouldn't need that permission, and not at all in any case.
Not to mention the fact that the new weasel-worded "irrevocability" clause threatens to cause exactly the same situation the next time Wizards decides their market share is suffering.
We reject the idea that deauthorization is necessary for anyone but Wizards and their shareholders.
It doesn't matter whether Wizards has the right to try to do this. That remains to be seen. Regardless, it's a hostile move, and they still -- up to this moment -- deserve every ounce of criticism the community is hurling at them for trying it.
Especially when they dare to call themselves the stewards of the game.
No OGL without TRUE irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
J Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
It's all a farse. A badly crafted corporate farse. Granted, they backed off from some unpopular points (Royalties and clauses that could let them steal all your work). But in essence, the primary problems stay the same. Nothing has changed, at all.
They still want to "de-authorize" 1.0a. They certainly don't have to - they want to so there can be no further support for 5E, so EVERYONE would have to be on board with their new version of D&D (i.e. 6E). Wether they can actually do it or not will probably will have to be settled in court though.
The VTT license is also a really bad joke. If implemented now, they could go after Roll20, Foundry and FG. They want to be the only advanced VTT in town.
In all honesty, I really like the new terms for the OGL. To me at least, it's shocking that there is still so much hate for the contract.
It's way better than the previous license, and this time, it is actually irrevocable in the sense of the word that a non-lawyer would use.
I find it kinda funny that I've been agreeing with Yurei so much lately. This almost never happens, something must be off. :)
The amount of progress we've made is absolutely amazing, and it would be nice if that aspect of things were better recognized. WotC is listening - even if they're stubbornly refusing to address what many people think is the single really important element.
If they'd abandon de-authorizing 1.0a, I think 1.2 would be an decent starting point for refinement.
I just don't buy their whole 'we have to deauthorize 1.2' angle. They don't have to - they just don't want it out there for people to use to make video games, or publish VTT material under going forward (inferred from what they're most particular about elsewhere in the document).
I would be overjoyed if they said 1.0a is acceptable for the already existing SRDs (and that those SRDs are still available) and that OGL1.2 is what they will use going forward. I might even continue buying sources I never use in actual play just because I would once again find WotC a worthy steward of the hobby. Of course I'd also want they to publicly state 1.0a is irrevocable henceforth, just because they gave us reason to doubt their honor.
So, because some people might get around the policy, Wizards shouldn't bother having one?
I have said multiple times I support the policy, in the new version of the OGL. Enforce it where they can - go get 'em.
But that neither justifies nor allows them to de-authorize 1.0a, and them pretending like this is an eminent issue that they could someone solve by getting rid of 1.0a is not true.
It also doesn't appear to be honest, since we can see business reasons - suppressing certain types of content that 1.0a allows, that they want full control of - being pursued right in front of our eyes.
If they want to convince me that its really about doing good, they could do so by dropping all of the restrictions on VTTs and video games in the new version while still guaranteeing its irrevocability. If their reason for needing to deauthorize 1.0a is just because they can't go after bad actors, then they can prove that by essentially reprinting 1.0a with the 'no hateful content' section added, irrevocability, and nothing else new. It is literally within their power.
But they probably won't, because that's not really their problem with 1.0a.
Thank you for this explanation. I am pretty new to D&D and was not plugged in during the Hadozee fiasco (though I heard of it). It still does not make sense to me, but thank you for trying.
In all honesty, I really like the new terms for the OGL. To me at least, it's shocking that there is still so much hate for the contract.
It's way better than the previous license, and this time, it is actually irrevocable in the sense of the word that a non-lawyer would use.
I find it kinda funny that I've been agreeing with Yurei so much lately. This almost never happens, something must be off. :)
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.They're clowns for offering the game mechanics under Creative Commons license. The game mechanics are already and have always been free to use under federal law as they can't be protected as intellectual property. Next they'll tell us we're free to breathe air while playing their game. Such a benevolent company!
Like I say, I'm glad you enjoy playing your way and it works for you, and that the OGL isn't affecting anything you care about. More power to you! I don't think it's necessary to try and put down other peoples preferences when it comes to games of make believe, we all have our own tolerance for what we think adds or distracts from the experience. Whatever you decide for your table is best for your table, same as any other.
I'm the guy actively defending wizards in my various DnD servers. I want to see them do well. I've invested a large amount of money in the beyond ecosystem. I do not want to jump ship as it means I've burnt a not insignificant amount of funds. I want to see them integrate a fully featured VTT right here, so nobody has to look anywhere else.
But I don't want to see them engaging in a cold war with their collaborators, and shutting down the competition with litigation. That's not good for anyone.
Like I say, if my use case and my creator friends use cases aren't compatible with the future of DnD, it's disappointing. It's a true lose lose scenario.
You're welcome and I hope my initial thoughts were wrong and you were genuinely seeking understanding. The D&D community certainly has some troubles in it's past, but we can grow to overcome them
The amount of progress we've made is absolutely amazing, and it would be nice if that aspect of things were better recognized. WotC is listening - even if they're stubbornly refusing to address what many people think is the single really important element.
If they'd abandon de-authorizing 1.0a, I think 1.2 would be an decent starting point for refinement.
I just don't buy their whole 'we have to deauthorize 1.2' angle. They don't have to - they just don't want it out there for people to use to make video games, or publish VTT material under going forward (inferred from what they're most particular about elsewhere in the document).
It's stagecraft, yes, but it's also a very public assurance that there's no way they can try to make a court case out of someone using the material, thus meaning any future attempt to do so would literally get thrown out as soon as the lawyers tried to bring the case to the courts.
I don't think this would actually impact Foundry. I haven't used Foundry in a little over a year so I may be misremembering, but to my knowledge the official Foundry modules are just the rules and if you buy some adventures the associated maps, characters, and etc. All of the animation stuff I used back then were fan made mods, and I don't think the OGL could stop that even if it wanted to. I haven't looked into this specific issue much so this is just a spitball take as it were, but it fits with my understanding of the laws generally.
I'd equate it to the ribbon abilities subclasses get. Doesn't mean much, but it's nice.
my biggest concern is the part about "hateful" content... who decides whats hateful and whats not?
i mean if you ask a Tibetan Monk he would say that being able to hurt others in the game is "hateful"
Basically; it might help smooth over/speed up the process if it ever came up, but it's true that it is not an actual concession. But, as I've said before, I really don't give a darn if WotC does a few face saving bits like that along the way so long as we get a solid OGL at the end.
The current SRD is actually 5.1 (appears to have been 5.1 since 2016, presumably 5.0 was the 2014 SRD), so this is in fact intended to apply to new 5th edition stuff going forward.
What this OGL means for the 3.0 and 3.5 SRDs is not clear and should be cleaned up.
As a lot of people have said, given that there are literally active court cases of TTRPG producers slapping down people who tried to publish hate content under their license, this isn't an imaginary issue. And, unfortunately, there's no universal ruler/identification guide for "hateful", so you're gonna have to trust someone's judgement at the end of the day. I'd say the community will be the ones who have to keep WotC honest, and the past few weeks suggest we've got a fair shake at that if they really try to move beyond the pale.
I find it kinda funny that you’re the second person to say that in this thread. 😂
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
They do - that parts super clear.
Which wouldn't be a total dealbreaker if they didn't have a recent history of shady, anti-competitive behavior and instead had a history of being reliable and opposing actually hateful behavior.
So, because some people might get around the policy, Wizards shouldn't bother having one?
I mean, I get not wanting to trust Wizards judgment in this. They've demonstrated that we need to take a close look at what they do. But if we're not trusting Wizards, it seems like the alternative for this kind of thing is to trust every person who is now or ever will play D&D. Just operate on the honor system. Personally, I'd rather have one entity to look at. And Wizards, for its faults, is predictable. We've seen this week that the community can force them to change, they have a clear motive (profit) and will respond when that's threatened.
Probably, I won't agree with all their decisions. Probably, no one will. But it's their decision to make, and then we have a clear responsible party whose feet can be held to the fire.
Moreover, pragmatically, this is not one you're going to win. You can put you don't like this phrase in the feedback tomorrow, and I encourage everyone who feels that way to do so. Make your voice heard. But, whatever else they may have obfuscated, they've been clear from the start that this was one of their goals. Maybe, if people present some rational arguments, they may make some tweaks to it, but in broad terms, this is going forward. If you want to spend your time tilting at this windmill, have at it. And if that's the reason you stop playing, then, well, that will be your choice.
Yeah, it's close, in the sense that a person with a single bullet hole in their forehead is almost still alive.
Because there seems to be confusion over why deauthorization terms aren't acceptable:
Creators of content under OGL 1.0a need to be able to update and iterate on that content, according to the terms and spirit of the original license. Full stop. It's not enough to be 'graciously permitted' by Wizards to continue to publish obsolete versions of products -- not when Wizards themselves previously established creators wouldn't need that permission, and not at all in any case.
Not to mention the fact that the new weasel-worded "irrevocability" clause threatens to cause exactly the same situation the next time Wizards decides their market share is suffering.
We reject the idea that deauthorization is necessary for anyone but Wizards and their shareholders.
It doesn't matter whether Wizards has the right to try to do this. That remains to be seen. Regardless, it's a hostile move, and they still -- up to this moment -- deserve every ounce of criticism the community is hurling at them for trying it.
Especially when they dare to call themselves the stewards of the game.
No OGL without TRUE irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
It's all a farse. A badly crafted corporate farse. Granted, they backed off from some unpopular points (Royalties and clauses that could let them steal all your work). But in essence, the primary problems stay the same. Nothing has changed, at all.
They still want to "de-authorize" 1.0a. They certainly don't have to - they want to so there can be no further support for 5E, so EVERYONE would have to be on board with their new version of D&D (i.e. 6E). Wether they can actually do it or not will probably will have to be settled in court though.
The VTT license is also a really bad joke. If implemented now, they could go after Roll20, Foundry and FG. They want to be the only advanced VTT in town.
It's all about monopolizing the TTRPG industry.
I would be overjoyed if they said 1.0a is acceptable for the already existing SRDs (and that those SRDs are still available) and that OGL1.2 is what they will use going forward. I might even continue buying sources I never use in actual play just because I would once again find WotC a worthy steward of the hobby. Of course I'd also want they to publicly state 1.0a is irrevocable henceforth, just because they gave us reason to doubt their honor.
I have said multiple times I support the policy, in the new version of the OGL. Enforce it where they can - go get 'em.
But that neither justifies nor allows them to de-authorize 1.0a, and them pretending like this is an eminent issue that they could someone solve by getting rid of 1.0a is not true.
It also doesn't appear to be honest, since we can see business reasons - suppressing certain types of content that 1.0a allows, that they want full control of - being pursued right in front of our eyes.
If they want to convince me that its really about doing good, they could do so by dropping all of the restrictions on VTTs and video games in the new version while still guaranteeing its irrevocability. If their reason for needing to deauthorize 1.0a is just because they can't go after bad actors, then they can prove that by essentially reprinting 1.0a with the 'no hateful content' section added, irrevocability, and nothing else new. It is literally within their power.
But they probably won't, because that's not really their problem with 1.0a.