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.
Umm, considering how much 1D&D resembles 5e, it's not exactly hard to make content neutral between the two.
Edit: To amend my prior point, it's not hard for a DM/group to finesse supplementary content to fit either one. Same skill mechanics, same core spell mechanics (even if they're throttling a great deal of class identity distinction between casters), same attack mechanics.
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.
Thanks for clearing that up. I think I got the idea that 5.1 was for next from one of the youtube discussions and I didn't confirm this. My bad.
That said, I'd be OK if anything previous to 5.0 was grandfathered in and protected. I'd still be a bit bent that they changed the 5th edition promises but I'd be less concerned than if the OSR content didn't get burned down by the new OGL.
In fact, I would feel much more good will towards WotC if they placed the pre-5.0 SRDs into the future ORC license while placing current content into something more proprietary.
OGL 1.0A OR BUST crowd? You're not helping. Knock it off and go play Pathfinder already. All you're doing is polluting an otherwise productive discussion on what needs attention and cleaning up in the new document(s).
Suggesting that a company should be held to honor its contractual commitments is not an unreasonable request.
We know what the intent of 1.0a was - we have the original creators to tell us.
Attempting to de-authorize it under any justification is a bad faith attempt to weasel out of an agreement that Hasbro/WotC entered into. They can't de-authorize it - and they knew that just a couple years ago. And then tried to hide the evidence.
That's not OK.
The rest of 1.2 may be a great improvement, but none of it changes the fact that they cannot in good faith attempt to de-authorize 1.0a.
Worse, their true motives are showing in how focused they are on 'video games' and video game features in the VTT policy - their issue with 1.0a is its doesn't prohibit these.
Video games existed in the way back year of 2000. If they had wanted to prevent them, they could have. They did not. WotC appears to find this threatening - too bad, its the deal they themselves made back then.
A party's intent only matters if it makes it into the contract. Despite what the original creators say it does not state it is irrevocable so they can indeed revoke it. I have yet to see a persuasive legal argument otherwise. You are free to take issue with that of course, but as it stands the point is WotC has stated they are not leaves 1.0a in place going forward and have indicated that matter is non-negotiable. The people in this thread are trying to work with that to get the best deal they can. WotC doesn't have to do any of this, they could have forced 2.0 down our throats. Yurei's point is exactly that.
But they did try force the 1.1 down people throats. It was not a draft (a straight out lie). Hence the outrage. Irrevocable wasn't even a legal term when the 1.0a was created. The language of the OGL 1.0/a is straight forward in intent and meaning. The 1.2 "draft" is more the same as was written 1.1, just reworded. Not a win for D&D community at all. The reason stated for need to revoke the 1.0a is completely false. WotC does not need to revoke 1.0 to do any of those things stated in the reasoning - they can already do those actions if needed .
The best deal is already here and we have it, the OGL 1.0/a. Going away from it is not good for anyone in our community. Let us not be fooled by anyone saying otherwise. There is nothing in the 1.2 that benefits us, as players, in anyway. D&D is only as valuable in the community that is playing it. Do not let wotc walking over you. No need to give up what you have, for that sort of control to some else. If they really want to impress us and prove to us, the community, wotc is still worth something, let them produce good products instead of making a new OGL that limits the creative community that has been fostered.
WOTC: So you know the thing that made our game so widely popular and successful? Let's **** that up and try to screw over literally everyone that's made something related to DnD. Lmao.
The OGL has been around for 20 years, the game didn't start getting widely popular until about 8 years ago. OGL had nothing to do with it.
Best I can tell the big things here are that OGL 1.0a is still deauthorized (which is a problem in any situation but may not be that big of a deal given the rest of the license) and that VTTs have been put on notice.
So arguably the people in trouble have moved from 3pp's to VTTs like foundry and owlbear rodeo which don't have known relationships with WotC.
The morality clause is a dealbreaker. WotC are not exactly trustworthy on this point and I think they will use it to target people they don't like or those who have a very successful product.
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).
To be honest, it makes sense (to me at least) to deauthorize 1.0 for a number of reasons. The main one is that it prevents future hateful content and people exploiting Wizards’ IP for profit and stuff. If you have one contract that allows things like this, then it doesn’t matter that the new contract doesn’t, since people can just ignore it and use the new one.
There aren’t that many massive changes between the two OGLs, mainly just stuff to make sure the ttrpg community doesn’t have their game exploited for unrelated + unnecessary profit making content. Also, it might be confusing to have similar products published at the same time on the same website but under different terms and OGLs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
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.
Highlighting this because it is important. Wizards is not saying you can’t have slavery in your content. It is not saying you can’t have racism in your content. It is not saying you cannot explore complex themes in your content. These are all things Wizards has effectively explored in their own content before.
Wizards is saying you can’t be offensive - you can’t actively be trying to hurt someone or so negligent in your disregard for basic decency someone is likely to be hurt.
Let’s look at orcs in D&D. They were problematic because Gygax put a lot of his racism into them - all his views on how tribal societies are evil and inept and should be exterminated (he literally quoted someone ordering a genocide of Native Americans as how he thought orcs should be treated).
That’s bad and Wizards would not want that.
Have content where the Human Empire believes all those things about orcs, but the content also shows that there are bad actors among both the Empire and the orcs, and that the orc culture is beautiful and fascinating in its own way that the Empire does not see? That probably would be fine - it is about exploring prejudice, not furthering it.
<<Sorry for the bad edit, hit reply instead of quote>>
Sorry, but offense can only be taken, not given. A person can be hurt with no intent of another person at all. Basic decency is a VERY SUBJECTIVE term.
I like to think of the D&D community as an inclusive, diverse one. One that there are others who have ideas, concepts, and even lifestyles that I may vehemently disagree with on "basic decency" standards. That does not make any of them invalid, hateful, discriminatory, or offensive, unless I choose to take offense.
As far as your orcs example, with no actual proof or citation, thus bordering on libel, even with that there is a good lesson to be had, maybe the party chooses the path of darkness, perhaps they choose the path of light. There are lessons, story, and even fun either way. Having fantasy creations make moral and/or ethical choices is definitely not bad. And if showing pain and suffering that can come from immoral and unethical choices in a "safe" fictional environment versus having to experience first-hand in the real world is a "bad" thing, then I'm not sure we want to live in a "good" world.
The simple language is that the licensor grants no privilege of protection to any content produced under it and the licensee who produces it is solely responsible for the content. This provides legal, ethical, and moral cover for WotC and allows the court of public opinion as well as the actual Courts to decide the fate of bad actors.
There is still too much not seeing the forest for the trees in the line of thought in this latest document, but at least they are recognizing that the trees do constitute a forest of some sort.
OGL 1.0A OR BUST crowd? You're not helping. Knock it off and go play Pathfinder already. All you're doing is polluting an otherwise productive discussion on what needs attention and cleaning up in the new document(s).
Suggesting that a company should be held to honor its contractual commitments is not an unreasonable request.
We know what the intent of 1.0a was - we have the original creators to tell us.
Attempting to de-authorize it under any justification is a bad faith attempt to weasel out of an agreement that Hasbro/WotC entered into. They can't de-authorize it - and they knew that just a couple years ago. And then tried to hide the evidence.
That's not OK.
The rest of 1.2 may be a great improvement, but none of it changes the fact that they cannot in good faith attempt to de-authorize 1.0a.
Worse, their true motives are showing in how focused they are on 'video games' and video game features in the VTT policy - their issue with 1.0a is its doesn't prohibit these.
Video games existed in the way back year of 2000. If they had wanted to prevent them, they could have. They did not. WotC appears to find this threatening - too bad, its the deal they themselves made back then.
A party's intent only matters if it makes it into the contract. Despite what the original creators say it does not state it is irrevocable so they can indeed revoke it. I have yet to see a persuasive legal argument otherwise. You are free to take issue with that of course, but as it stands the point is WotC has stated they are not leaves 1.0a in place going forward and have indicated that matter is non-negotiable. The people in this thread are trying to work with that to get the best deal they can. WotC doesn't have to do any of this, they could have forced 2.0 down our throats. Yurei's point is exactly that.
But they did try force the 1.1 down people throats. It was not a draft (a straight out lie). Hence the outrage. Irrevocable wasn't even a legal term when the 1.0a was created. The language of the OGL 1.0/a is straight forward in intent and meaning. The 1.2 "draft" is more the same as was written 1.1, just reworded. Not a win for D&D community at all. The reason stated for need to revoke the 1.0a is completely false. WotC does not need to revoke 1.0 to do any of those things stated in the reasoning - they can already do those actions if needed .
The best deal is already here and we have it, the OGL 1.0/a. Going away from it is not good for anyone in our community. Let us not be fooled by anyone saying otherwise. There is nothing in the 1.2 that benefits us, as players, in anyway. D&D is only as valuable in the community that is playing it. Do not let wotc walking over you. No need to give up what you have, for that sort of control to some else. If they really want to impress us and prove to us, the community, wotc is still worth something, let them produce good products instead of making a new OGL that limits the creative community that has been fostered.
I don't disagree with you on how poorly they've handled matters to date, and as others in this thread can tell you I take big issue with their use of the term draft. that particular discussion just isn't pertinent in this particular thread outside of keeping healthy skepticism. Their stated reason for revoking 1.0a going forward is correct though. If left in place then people they try to stop under 1.2 can just say they published under 1.0a. It's valid to say you want 1.0a to stay, but if WotC does want a new version they do need to revoke the existing one going forward. I don't believe 1.0a gives them the power to accomplish their goals as you say it does. At best you have an argument it does, but that is not a certain as you make it seem.
What specifically are you losing as a player under 1.2 that you have currently under 1.0a? You make the claim players are losing, but you need to make that clear with actual examples or it is just an unsupported assertion.
What specifically are you losing as a player under 1.2 that you have currently under 1.0a? You make the claim players are losing, but you need to make that clear with actual examples or it is just an unsupported assertion.
Am I wrong in reading the de-authorizing of 1.0a and the exclusion of 5.0 and previous SRDs a loss? I personally play about 2/3 OSR and 1/3 5E. If 3pp can't continue creating OSR material, I think we've lost quite a bit.
Perhaps I am not reading this correctly. I'd love WotC to specifically say something about this.
OGL 1.0A OR BUST crowd? You're not helping. Knock it off and go play Pathfinder already. All you're doing is polluting an otherwise productive discussion on what needs attention and cleaning up in the new document(s).
Suggesting that a company should be held to honor its contractual commitments is not an unreasonable request.
We know what the intent of 1.0a was - we have the original creators to tell us.
Attempting to de-authorize it under any justification is a bad faith attempt to weasel out of an agreement that Hasbro/WotC entered into. They can't de-authorize it - and they knew that just a couple years ago. And then tried to hide the evidence.
That's not OK.
The rest of 1.2 may be a great improvement, but none of it changes the fact that they cannot in good faith attempt to de-authorize 1.0a.
Worse, their true motives are showing in how focused they are on 'video games' and video game features in the VTT policy - their issue with 1.0a is its doesn't prohibit these.
Video games existed in the way back year of 2000. If they had wanted to prevent them, they could have. They did not. WotC appears to find this threatening - too bad, its the deal they themselves made back then.
A party's intent only matters if it makes it into the contract. Despite what the original creators say it does not state it is irrevocable so they can indeed revoke it. I have yet to see a persuasive legal argument otherwise. You are free to take issue with that of course, but as it stands the point is WotC has stated they are not leaves 1.0a in place going forward and have indicated that matter is non-negotiable. The people in this thread are trying to work with that to get the best deal they can. WotC doesn't have to do any of this, they could have forced 2.0 down our throats. Yurei's point is exactly that.
But they did try force the 1.1 down people throats. It was not a draft (a straight out lie). Hence the outrage. Irrevocable wasn't even a legal term when the 1.0a was created. The language of the OGL 1.0/a is straight forward in intent and meaning. The 1.2 "draft" is more the same as was written 1.1, just reworded. Not a win for D&D community at all. The reason stated for need to revoke the 1.0a is completely false. WotC does not need to revoke 1.0 to do any of those things stated in the reasoning - they can already do those actions if needed .
The best deal is already here and we have it, the OGL 1.0/a. Going away from it is not good for anyone in our community. Let us not be fooled by anyone saying otherwise. There is nothing in the 1.2 that benefits us, as players, in anyway. D&D is only as valuable in the community that is playing it. Do not let wotc walking over you. No need to give up what you have, for that sort of control to some else. If they really want to impress us and prove to us, the community, wotc is still worth something, let them produce good products instead of making a new OGL that limits the creative community that has been fostered.
I don't disagree with you on how poorly they've handled matters to date, and as others in this thread can tell you I take big issue with their use of the term draft. that particular discussion just isn't pertinent in this particular thread outside of keeping healthy skepticism. Their stated reason for revoking 1.0a going forward is correct though. If left in place then people they try to stop under 1.2 can just say they published under 1.0a. It's valid to say you want 1.0a to stay, but if WotC does want a new version they do need to revoke the existing one going forward. I don't believe 1.0a gives them the power to accomplish their goals as you say it does. At best you have an argument it does, but that is not a certain as you make it seem.
What specifically are you losing as a player under 1.2 that you have currently under 1.0a? You make the claim players are losing, but you need to make that clear with actual examples or it is just an unsupported assertion.
I've laid out examples in this thread. The current wording of the VTT policy would affect not only the VTT's themselves, but the communities that create associated code and original artwork to supplement them. I think the general response from those happy with Wizards position was that "Wizards shouldn't care about them cos they're competitors and liking those things is dumb" (a reductive version of the argument, to be sure, but the impression I got)
What specifically are you losing as a player under 1.2 that you have currently under 1.0a? You make the claim players are losing, but you need to make that clear with actual examples or it is just an unsupported assertion.
Am I wrong in reading the de-authorizing of 1.0a and the exclusion of 5.0 and previous SRDs a loss? I personally play about 2/3 OSR and 1/3 5E. If 3pp can't continue creating OSR material, I think we've lost quite a bit.
Perhaps I am not reading this correctly. I'd love WotC to specifically say something about this.
Absolutely true, if 5e is all that's on offer with this "OGL" then it's even more reason not to use this.
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?
Because not doing so would impact them financially if they lost tens of thousands of customers?
Call me cynical but their original plan to cripple publishers who make the hobby all that more enriching for many of us is for me a pretty good indication they care much more about money than they do the community.
I think that's a fair interpretation rather than a cynical one.
This new license makes huge strides forwards and I really believe that we are getting close to an agreement. I don't believe that they need to reach an agreement with me, who am I, some dude behind a keyboard? They do need to fix this huge PR fiasco with something that their consumers find agreeable and it would appear that they are getting close.
I think OGL is a misnomer, it's restrictive and not open. Who at Hasbro is going to judge if something is offensive? This is totally subjective and why we have the courts system in place. One of many reasons perhaps. I live in the US and what is considered offensive varies hugely based on your "news" outlet of choice. I understand that Hasbro is trying to protect it's self here, but that is why we have the court system.
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.
You are wrong about orcs: Their presence in Northern European folk tales and fairy tales did not arise from engagement with "real world tribal nations" or unpalatable attitudes towards them. And if you read Shippey or any other Tolkien scholar you will also discover Tolkien's depiction of them was never intended to be analogous with any real world ethnic group.
There has been pushback against certain rhetoric surrounding orcs, suggesting such rhetoric is in and of itself racist and rooted in people's own projections: In the racism of those who see such similarities.
Tolkien orcs are not D&D orcs are not Warcraft orcs are not Northern European folk tale orcs, so references to one to defend another aren't relevant. Even if they share some origins it is one being not racist is not dispositive on whether the other is racist because each author had their own intentions and misgivings. One thing to note, just because something may be race coded doesn't mean the author was racist. It's also possible they were only basing their characters on racist ideas they were taught to be true and only later learned were incorrect. That's what we are seeing with updates to D&D.
As for the rhetoric argument it's a bit of a chicken/egg argument isn't it? As you describe it, someone who has racist views wouldn't be able to see racist similarities if they weren't there would they? Then we could just go back and forth in circles making the same arguments to each other.
I base my opinion on them being coded as racist from those who suffered said racism. If they tell me it's racist coded I take them at their word unless there is good evidence to believe otherwise.
OGL 1.0A OR BUST crowd? You're not helping. Knock it off and go play Pathfinder already. All you're doing is polluting an otherwise productive discussion on what needs attention and cleaning up in the new document(s).
Suggesting that a company should be held to honor its contractual commitments is not an unreasonable request.
We know what the intent of 1.0a was - we have the original creators to tell us.
Attempting to de-authorize it under any justification is a bad faith attempt to weasel out of an agreement that Hasbro/WotC entered into. They can't de-authorize it - and they knew that just a couple years ago. And then tried to hide the evidence.
That's not OK.
The rest of 1.2 may be a great improvement, but none of it changes the fact that they cannot in good faith attempt to de-authorize 1.0a.
Worse, their true motives are showing in how focused they are on 'video games' and video game features in the VTT policy - their issue with 1.0a is its doesn't prohibit these.
Video games existed in the way back year of 2000. If they had wanted to prevent them, they could have. They did not. WotC appears to find this threatening - too bad, its the deal they themselves made back then.
A party's intent only matters if it makes it into the contract. Despite what the original creators say it does not state it is irrevocable so they can indeed revoke it. I have yet to see a persuasive legal argument otherwise. You are free to take issue with that of course, but as it stands the point is WotC has stated they are not leaves 1.0a in place going forward and have indicated that matter is non-negotiable. The people in this thread are trying to work with that to get the best deal they can. WotC doesn't have to do any of this, they could have forced 2.0 down our throats. Yurei's point is exactly that.
But they did try force the 1.1 down people throats. It was not a draft (a straight out lie). Hence the outrage. Irrevocable wasn't even a legal term when the 1.0a was created. The language of the OGL 1.0/a is straight forward in intent and meaning. The 1.2 "draft" is more the same as was written 1.1, just reworded. Not a win for D&D community at all. The reason stated for need to revoke the 1.0a is completely false. WotC does not need to revoke 1.0 to do any of those things stated in the reasoning - they can already do those actions if needed .
The best deal is already here and we have it, the OGL 1.0/a. Going away from it is not good for anyone in our community. Let us not be fooled by anyone saying otherwise. There is nothing in the 1.2 that benefits us, as players, in anyway. D&D is only as valuable in the community that is playing it. Do not let wotc walking over you. No need to give up what you have, for that sort of control to some else. If they really want to impress us and prove to us, the community, wotc is still worth something, let them produce good products instead of making a new OGL that limits the creative community that has been fostered.
I don't disagree with you on how poorly they've handled matters to date, and as others in this thread can tell you I take big issue with their use of the term draft. that particular discussion just isn't pertinent in this particular thread outside of keeping healthy skepticism. Their stated reason for revoking 1.0a going forward is correct though. If left in place then people they try to stop under 1.2 can just say they published under 1.0a. It's valid to say you want 1.0a to stay, but if WotC does want a new version they do need to revoke the existing one going forward. I don't believe 1.0a gives them the power to accomplish their goals as you say it does. At best you have an argument it does, but that is not a certain as you make it seem.
What specifically are you losing as a player under 1.2 that you have currently under 1.0a? You make the claim players are losing, but you need to make that clear with actual examples or it is just an unsupported assertion.
Derksmash let's put out a basis:
1. A party devises a system based which it published under OGL 1.0a
2. Same party publishes support material for that system, so the material is derived from OGL1.0a
3. Same party currently has resources and commitments for the next 24 months to produce further material for that system published under OGL 1.0a
SCENARIO A:
The party does not publish/accept OGL/CC1.2. Can they publish the works currently "in the pipeline"? Can they reprint previous works?
SCENARIO B:
The party does accept OGL/CC1.2. Would the "works in the pipeline" need to be published under new license? Can they reprint previous works?
This new license makes huge strides forwards and I really believe that we are getting close to an agreement. I don't believe that they need to reach an agreement with me, who am I, some dude behind a keyboard? They do need to fix this huge PR fiasco with something that their consumers find agreeable and it would appear that they are getting close.
I think OGL is a misnomer, it's restrictive and not open. Who at Hasbro is going to judge if something is offensive? This is totally subjective and why we have the courts system in place. One of many reasons perhaps. I live in the US and what is considered offensive varies hugely based on your "news" outlet of choice. I understand that Hasbro is trying to protect it's self here, but that is why we have the court system.
But in order to get it into a court they need to have a provision to enforce. The way it would go, as I see it, is publisher publishes content...WotC finds said content offensive and sends a cease and desist...publisher either complies or doesn't...if the latter one of the parties files suit and it is now in court. But the court has to have an actual "claim in controversy" otherwise it lacks jurisdiction to hear the case at all and must dismiss. This is WotC's way of making sure there is a "claim in controversy."
OGL 1.0A OR BUST crowd? You're not helping. Knock it off and go play Pathfinder already. All you're doing is polluting an otherwise productive discussion on what needs attention and cleaning up in the new document(s).
Suggesting that a company should be held to honor its contractual commitments is not an unreasonable request.
We know what the intent of 1.0a was - we have the original creators to tell us.
Attempting to de-authorize it under any justification is a bad faith attempt to weasel out of an agreement that Hasbro/WotC entered into. They can't de-authorize it - and they knew that just a couple years ago. And then tried to hide the evidence.
That's not OK.
The rest of 1.2 may be a great improvement, but none of it changes the fact that they cannot in good faith attempt to de-authorize 1.0a.
Worse, their true motives are showing in how focused they are on 'video games' and video game features in the VTT policy - their issue with 1.0a is its doesn't prohibit these.
Video games existed in the way back year of 2000. If they had wanted to prevent them, they could have. They did not. WotC appears to find this threatening - too bad, its the deal they themselves made back then.
A party's intent only matters if it makes it into the contract. Despite what the original creators say it does not state it is irrevocable so they can indeed revoke it. I have yet to see a persuasive legal argument otherwise. You are free to take issue with that of course, but as it stands the point is WotC has stated they are not leaves 1.0a in place going forward and have indicated that matter is non-negotiable. The people in this thread are trying to work with that to get the best deal they can. WotC doesn't have to do any of this, they could have forced 2.0 down our throats. Yurei's point is exactly that.
But they did try force the 1.1 down people throats. It was not a draft (a straight out lie). Hence the outrage. Irrevocable wasn't even a legal term when the 1.0a was created. The language of the OGL 1.0/a is straight forward in intent and meaning. The 1.2 "draft" is more the same as was written 1.1, just reworded. Not a win for D&D community at all. The reason stated for need to revoke the 1.0a is completely false. WotC does not need to revoke 1.0 to do any of those things stated in the reasoning - they can already do those actions if needed .
The best deal is already here and we have it, the OGL 1.0/a. Going away from it is not good for anyone in our community. Let us not be fooled by anyone saying otherwise. There is nothing in the 1.2 that benefits us, as players, in anyway. D&D is only as valuable in the community that is playing it. Do not let wotc walking over you. No need to give up what you have, for that sort of control to some else. If they really want to impress us and prove to us, the community, wotc is still worth something, let them produce good products instead of making a new OGL that limits the creative community that has been fostered.
I don't disagree with you on how poorly they've handled matters to date, and as others in this thread can tell you I take big issue with their use of the term draft. that particular discussion just isn't pertinent in this particular thread outside of keeping healthy skepticism. Their stated reason for revoking 1.0a going forward is correct though. If left in place then people they try to stop under 1.2 can just say they published under 1.0a. It's valid to say you want 1.0a to stay, but if WotC does want a new version they do need to revoke the existing one going forward. I don't believe 1.0a gives them the power to accomplish their goals as you say it does. At best you have an argument it does, but that is not a certain as you make it seem.
What specifically are you losing as a player under 1.2 that you have currently under 1.0a? You make the claim players are losing, but you need to make that clear with actual examples or it is just an unsupported assertion.
I've laid out examples in this thread. The current wording of the VTT policy would affect not only the VTT's themselves, but the communities that create associated code and original artwork to supplement them. I think the general response from those happy with Wizards position was that "Wizards shouldn't care about them cos they're competitors and liking those things is dumb" (a reductive version of the argument, to be sure, but the impression I got)
Okay, and others, including myself have disagreed with your opinion on that impact. For example, I don't see VTT's having a problem as they are currently run. Few if any of them integrate the things people are talking about into the base system. The things people are concerned about losing are player made mods that wouldn't fall under the restrictions in reference as I understand it. To be clear I'm not siding with WotC or happy with their position exactly. And I don't think WotC shouldn't care cause competition blah blah. I think they absolutely should care and find workable solutions to the problems if they exist. What I take from the VTT section is similar to what Yurei says, they are concerned a VTT could become what amounts to a full fledged video game as a base model, but continue calling itself a VTT to skirt commercial licensing requirements.
OGL 1.0A OR BUST crowd? You're not helping. Knock it off and go play Pathfinder already. All you're doing is polluting an otherwise productive discussion on what needs attention and cleaning up in the new document(s).
Suggesting that a company should be held to honor its contractual commitments is not an unreasonable request.
We know what the intent of 1.0a was - we have the original creators to tell us.
Attempting to de-authorize it under any justification is a bad faith attempt to weasel out of an agreement that Hasbro/WotC entered into. They can't de-authorize it - and they knew that just a couple years ago. And then tried to hide the evidence.
That's not OK.
The rest of 1.2 may be a great improvement, but none of it changes the fact that they cannot in good faith attempt to de-authorize 1.0a.
Worse, their true motives are showing in how focused they are on 'video games' and video game features in the VTT policy - their issue with 1.0a is its doesn't prohibit these.
Video games existed in the way back year of 2000. If they had wanted to prevent them, they could have. They did not. WotC appears to find this threatening - too bad, its the deal they themselves made back then.
A party's intent only matters if it makes it into the contract. Despite what the original creators say it does not state it is irrevocable so they can indeed revoke it. I have yet to see a persuasive legal argument otherwise. You are free to take issue with that of course, but as it stands the point is WotC has stated they are not leaves 1.0a in place going forward and have indicated that matter is non-negotiable. The people in this thread are trying to work with that to get the best deal they can. WotC doesn't have to do any of this, they could have forced 2.0 down our throats. Yurei's point is exactly that.
But they did try force the 1.1 down people throats. It was not a draft (a straight out lie). Hence the outrage. Irrevocable wasn't even a legal term when the 1.0a was created. The language of the OGL 1.0/a is straight forward in intent and meaning. The 1.2 "draft" is more the same as was written 1.1, just reworded. Not a win for D&D community at all. The reason stated for need to revoke the 1.0a is completely false. WotC does not need to revoke 1.0 to do any of those things stated in the reasoning - they can already do those actions if needed .
The best deal is already here and we have it, the OGL 1.0/a. Going away from it is not good for anyone in our community. Let us not be fooled by anyone saying otherwise. There is nothing in the 1.2 that benefits us, as players, in anyway. D&D is only as valuable in the community that is playing it. Do not let wotc walking over you. No need to give up what you have, for that sort of control to some else. If they really want to impress us and prove to us, the community, wotc is still worth something, let them produce good products instead of making a new OGL that limits the creative community that has been fostered.
I don't disagree with you on how poorly they've handled matters to date, and as others in this thread can tell you I take big issue with their use of the term draft. that particular discussion just isn't pertinent in this particular thread outside of keeping healthy skepticism. Their stated reason for revoking 1.0a going forward is correct though. If left in place then people they try to stop under 1.2 can just say they published under 1.0a. It's valid to say you want 1.0a to stay, but if WotC does want a new version they do need to revoke the existing one going forward. I don't believe 1.0a gives them the power to accomplish their goals as you say it does. At best you have an argument it does, but that is not a certain as you make it seem.
What specifically are you losing as a player under 1.2 that you have currently under 1.0a? You make the claim players are losing, but you need to make that clear with actual examples or it is just an unsupported assertion.
Derksmash let's put out a basis:
1. A party devises a system based which it published under OGL 1.0a
2. Same party publishes support material for that system, so the material is derived from OGL1.0a
3. Same party currently has resources and commitments for the next 24 months to produce further material for that system published under OGL 1.0a
SCENARIO A:
The party does not publish/accept OGL/CC1.2. Can they publish the works currently "in the pipeline"? Can they reprint previous works?
SCENARIO B:
The party does accept OGL/CC1.2. Would the "works in the pipeline" need to be published under new license? Can they reprint previous works?
These are legitimate questions, and I don't know the answer to them as it currently stands. This would be great feedback to include when the option becomes available tomorrow (i believe that is correct).
OGL 1.0A OR BUST crowd? You're not helping. Knock it off and go play Pathfinder already. All you're doing is polluting an otherwise productive discussion on what needs attention and cleaning up in the new document(s).
Suggesting that a company should be held to honor its contractual commitments is not an unreasonable request.
We know what the intent of 1.0a was - we have the original creators to tell us.
Attempting to de-authorize it under any justification is a bad faith attempt to weasel out of an agreement that Hasbro/WotC entered into. They can't de-authorize it - and they knew that just a couple years ago. And then tried to hide the evidence.
That's not OK.
The rest of 1.2 may be a great improvement, but none of it changes the fact that they cannot in good faith attempt to de-authorize 1.0a.
Worse, their true motives are showing in how focused they are on 'video games' and video game features in the VTT policy - their issue with 1.0a is its doesn't prohibit these.
Video games existed in the way back year of 2000. If they had wanted to prevent them, they could have. They did not. WotC appears to find this threatening - too bad, its the deal they themselves made back then.
A party's intent only matters if it makes it into the contract. Despite what the original creators say it does not state it is irrevocable so they can indeed revoke it. I have yet to see a persuasive legal argument otherwise. You are free to take issue with that of course, but as it stands the point is WotC has stated they are not leaves 1.0a in place going forward and have indicated that matter is non-negotiable. The people in this thread are trying to work with that to get the best deal they can. WotC doesn't have to do any of this, they could have forced 2.0 down our throats. Yurei's point is exactly that.
But they did try force the 1.1 down people throats. It was not a draft (a straight out lie). Hence the outrage. Irrevocable wasn't even a legal term when the 1.0a was created. The language of the OGL 1.0/a is straight forward in intent and meaning. The 1.2 "draft" is more the same as was written 1.1, just reworded. Not a win for D&D community at all. The reason stated for need to revoke the 1.0a is completely false. WotC does not need to revoke 1.0 to do any of those things stated in the reasoning - they can already do those actions if needed .
The best deal is already here and we have it, the OGL 1.0/a. Going away from it is not good for anyone in our community. Let us not be fooled by anyone saying otherwise. There is nothing in the 1.2 that benefits us, as players, in anyway. D&D is only as valuable in the community that is playing it. Do not let wotc walking over you. No need to give up what you have, for that sort of control to some else. If they really want to impress us and prove to us, the community, wotc is still worth something, let them produce good products instead of making a new OGL that limits the creative community that has been fostered.
I don't disagree with you on how poorly they've handled matters to date, and as others in this thread can tell you I take big issue with their use of the term draft. that particular discussion just isn't pertinent in this particular thread outside of keeping healthy skepticism. Their stated reason for revoking 1.0a going forward is correct though. If left in place then people they try to stop under 1.2 can just say they published under 1.0a. It's valid to say you want 1.0a to stay, but if WotC does want a new version they do need to revoke the existing one going forward. I don't believe 1.0a gives them the power to accomplish their goals as you say it does. At best you have an argument it does, but that is not a certain as you make it seem.
What specifically are you losing as a player under 1.2 that you have currently under 1.0a? You make the claim players are losing, but you need to make that clear with actual examples or it is just an unsupported assertion.
I've laid out examples in this thread. The current wording of the VTT policy would affect not only the VTT's themselves, but the communities that create associated code and original artwork to supplement them. I think the general response from those happy with Wizards position was that "Wizards shouldn't care about them cos they're competitors and liking those things is dumb" (a reductive version of the argument, to be sure, but the impression I got)
Okay, and others, including myself have disagreed with your opinion on that impact. For example, I don't see VTT's having a problem as they are currently run. Few if any of them integrate the things people are talking about into the base system. The things people are concerned about losing are player made mods that wouldn't fall under the restrictions in reference as I understand it. To be clear I'm not siding with WotC or happy with their position exactly. And I don't think WotC shouldn't care cause competition blah blah. I think they absolutely should care and find workable solutions to the problems if they exist. What I take from the VTT section is similar to what Yurei says, they are concerned a VTT could become what amounts to a full fledged video game as a base model, but continue calling itself a VTT to skirt commercial licensing requirements.
And I hope you're correct - I'm no lawyer but I do work in claims, and contract disputes make up the majority of my day job. Words as written, the current format of the VTT policy would bar several of the content creators I use from continuing to service 5e, despite them creating their own original assets.
I hope its changed, or clarified, and it's not simply a case of Wizards not wanting VTT's to include "features that don’t replicate your dining room table storytelling" such as "an animation of the Magic Missile streaking across the board to strike your target"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Umm, considering how much 1D&D resembles 5e, it's not exactly hard to make content neutral between the two.
Edit: To amend my prior point, it's not hard for a DM/group to finesse supplementary content to fit either one. Same skill mechanics, same core spell mechanics (even if they're throttling a great deal of class identity distinction between casters), same attack mechanics.
Thanks for clearing that up. I think I got the idea that 5.1 was for next from one of the youtube discussions and I didn't confirm this. My bad.
That said, I'd be OK if anything previous to 5.0 was grandfathered in and protected. I'd still be a bit bent that they changed the 5th edition promises but I'd be less concerned than if the OSR content didn't get burned down by the new OGL.
In fact, I would feel much more good will towards WotC if they placed the pre-5.0 SRDs into the future ORC license while placing current content into something more proprietary.
But they did try force the 1.1 down people throats. It was not a draft (a straight out lie). Hence the outrage. Irrevocable wasn't even a legal term when the 1.0a was created. The language of the OGL 1.0/a is straight forward in intent and meaning. The 1.2 "draft" is more the same as was written 1.1, just reworded. Not a win for D&D community at all. The reason stated for need to revoke the 1.0a is completely false. WotC does not need to revoke 1.0 to do any of those things stated in the reasoning - they can already do those actions if needed .
The best deal is already here and we have it, the OGL 1.0/a. Going away from it is not good for anyone in our community. Let us not be fooled by anyone saying otherwise. There is nothing in the 1.2 that benefits us, as players, in anyway. D&D is only as valuable in the community that is playing it. Do not let wotc walking over you. No need to give up what you have, for that sort of control to some else. If they really want to impress us and prove to us, the community, wotc is still worth something, let them produce good products instead of making a new OGL that limits the creative community that has been fostered.
The OGL has been around for 20 years, the game didn't start getting widely popular until about 8 years ago. OGL had nothing to do with it.
how is it a problem?
The morality clause is a dealbreaker. WotC are not exactly trustworthy on this point and I think they will use it to target people they don't like or those who have a very successful product.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
Heh. Who was the first?
To be honest, it makes sense (to me at least) to deauthorize 1.0 for a number of reasons. The main one is that it prevents future hateful content and people exploiting Wizards’ IP for profit and stuff. If you have one contract that allows things like this, then it doesn’t matter that the new contract doesn’t, since people can just ignore it and use the new one.
There aren’t that many massive changes between the two OGLs, mainly just stuff to make sure the ttrpg community doesn’t have their game exploited for unrelated + unnecessary profit making content. Also, it might be confusing to have similar products published at the same time on the same website but under different terms and OGLs.
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.Lol. I don’t remember. I looked for the first one but I couldn’t find it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Highlighting this because it is important. Wizards is not saying you can’t have slavery in your content. It is not saying you can’t have racism in your content. It is not saying you cannot explore complex themes in your content. These are all things Wizards has effectively explored in their own content before.
Wizards is saying you can’t be offensive - you can’t actively be trying to hurt someone or so negligent in your disregard for basic decency someone is likely to be hurt.
Let’s look at orcs in D&D. They were problematic because Gygax put a lot of his racism into them - all his views on how tribal societies are evil and inept and should be exterminated (he literally quoted someone ordering a genocide of Native Americans as how he thought orcs should be treated).
That’s bad and Wizards would not want that.
Have content where the Human Empire believes all those things about orcs, but the content also shows that there are bad actors among both the Empire and the orcs, and that the orc culture is beautiful and fascinating in its own way that the Empire does not see? That probably would be fine - it is about exploring prejudice, not furthering it.
<<Sorry for the bad edit, hit reply instead of quote>>
Sorry, but offense can only be taken, not given. A person can be hurt with no intent of another person at all. Basic decency is a VERY SUBJECTIVE term.
I like to think of the D&D community as an inclusive, diverse one. One that there are others who have ideas, concepts, and even lifestyles that I may vehemently disagree with on "basic decency" standards. That does not make any of them invalid, hateful, discriminatory, or offensive, unless I choose to take offense.
As far as your orcs example, with no actual proof or citation, thus bordering on libel, even with that there is a good lesson to be had, maybe the party chooses the path of darkness, perhaps they choose the path of light. There are lessons, story, and even fun either way. Having fantasy creations make moral and/or ethical choices is definitely not bad. And if showing pain and suffering that can come from immoral and unethical choices in a "safe" fictional environment versus having to experience first-hand in the real world is a "bad" thing, then I'm not sure we want to live in a "good" world.
The simple language is that the licensor grants no privilege of protection to any content produced under it and the licensee who produces it is solely responsible for the content. This provides legal, ethical, and moral cover for WotC and allows the court of public opinion as well as the actual Courts to decide the fate of bad actors.
There is still too much not seeing the forest for the trees in the line of thought in this latest document, but at least they are recognizing that the trees do constitute a forest of some sort.
I don't disagree with you on how poorly they've handled matters to date, and as others in this thread can tell you I take big issue with their use of the term draft. that particular discussion just isn't pertinent in this particular thread outside of keeping healthy skepticism. Their stated reason for revoking 1.0a going forward is correct though. If left in place then people they try to stop under 1.2 can just say they published under 1.0a. It's valid to say you want 1.0a to stay, but if WotC does want a new version they do need to revoke the existing one going forward. I don't believe 1.0a gives them the power to accomplish their goals as you say it does. At best you have an argument it does, but that is not a certain as you make it seem.
What specifically are you losing as a player under 1.2 that you have currently under 1.0a? You make the claim players are losing, but you need to make that clear with actual examples or it is just an unsupported assertion.
Am I wrong in reading the de-authorizing of 1.0a and the exclusion of 5.0 and previous SRDs a loss? I personally play about 2/3 OSR and 1/3 5E. If 3pp can't continue creating OSR material, I think we've lost quite a bit.
Perhaps I am not reading this correctly. I'd love WotC to specifically say something about this.
I've laid out examples in this thread. The current wording of the VTT policy would affect not only the VTT's themselves, but the communities that create associated code and original artwork to supplement them. I think the general response from those happy with Wizards position was that "Wizards shouldn't care about them cos they're competitors and liking those things is dumb" (a reductive version of the argument, to be sure, but the impression I got)
Absolutely true, if 5e is all that's on offer with this "OGL" then it's even more reason not to use this.
I think that's a fair interpretation rather than a cynical one.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
This new license makes huge strides forwards and I really believe that we are getting close to an agreement. I don't believe that they need to reach an agreement with me, who am I, some dude behind a keyboard? They do need to fix this huge PR fiasco with something that their consumers find agreeable and it would appear that they are getting close.
I think OGL is a misnomer, it's restrictive and not open. Who at Hasbro is going to judge if something is offensive? This is totally subjective and why we have the courts system in place. One of many reasons perhaps. I live in the US and what is considered offensive varies hugely based on your "news" outlet of choice. I understand that Hasbro is trying to protect it's self here, but that is why we have the court system.
Tolkien orcs are not D&D orcs are not Warcraft orcs are not Northern European folk tale orcs, so references to one to defend another aren't relevant. Even if they share some origins it is one being not racist is not dispositive on whether the other is racist because each author had their own intentions and misgivings. One thing to note, just because something may be race coded doesn't mean the author was racist. It's also possible they were only basing their characters on racist ideas they were taught to be true and only later learned were incorrect. That's what we are seeing with updates to D&D.
As for the rhetoric argument it's a bit of a chicken/egg argument isn't it? As you describe it, someone who has racist views wouldn't be able to see racist similarities if they weren't there would they? Then we could just go back and forth in circles making the same arguments to each other.
I base my opinion on them being coded as racist from those who suffered said racism. If they tell me it's racist coded I take them at their word unless there is good evidence to believe otherwise.
Derksmash let's put out a basis:
1. A party devises a system based which it published under OGL 1.0a
2. Same party publishes support material for that system, so the material is derived from OGL1.0a
3. Same party currently has resources and commitments for the next 24 months to produce further material for that system published under OGL 1.0a
SCENARIO A:
The party does not publish/accept OGL/CC1.2. Can they publish the works currently "in the pipeline"? Can they reprint previous works?
SCENARIO B:
The party does accept OGL/CC1.2. Would the "works in the pipeline" need to be published under new license? Can they reprint previous works?
But in order to get it into a court they need to have a provision to enforce. The way it would go, as I see it, is publisher publishes content...WotC finds said content offensive and sends a cease and desist...publisher either complies or doesn't...if the latter one of the parties files suit and it is now in court. But the court has to have an actual "claim in controversy" otherwise it lacks jurisdiction to hear the case at all and must dismiss. This is WotC's way of making sure there is a "claim in controversy."
Okay, and others, including myself have disagreed with your opinion on that impact. For example, I don't see VTT's having a problem as they are currently run. Few if any of them integrate the things people are talking about into the base system. The things people are concerned about losing are player made mods that wouldn't fall under the restrictions in reference as I understand it. To be clear I'm not siding with WotC or happy with their position exactly. And I don't think WotC shouldn't care cause competition blah blah. I think they absolutely should care and find workable solutions to the problems if they exist. What I take from the VTT section is similar to what Yurei says, they are concerned a VTT could become what amounts to a full fledged video game as a base model, but continue calling itself a VTT to skirt commercial licensing requirements.
These are legitimate questions, and I don't know the answer to them as it currently stands. This would be great feedback to include when the option becomes available tomorrow (i believe that is correct).
And I hope you're correct - I'm no lawyer but I do work in claims, and contract disputes make up the majority of my day job. Words as written, the current format of the VTT policy would bar several of the content creators I use from continuing to service 5e, despite them creating their own original assets.
I hope its changed, or clarified, and it's not simply a case of Wizards not wanting VTT's to include "features that don’t replicate your dining room table storytelling" such as "an animation of the Magic Missile streaking across the board to strike your target"