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."
I am not a lawyer, and very unsure of procedure. From this license agreement it does appear that all disputes must be settled in Seattle. I am not a resident of WA and have never participated in court there. The license agreement appears to state that they can terminate the agreement without court involvement if they find you in breach which removes any sort of protections for producers of content and their livelyhood. Not sure if it would hold up in court in Seattle, but if you signed the contract guessing it would.
I am a rules lawyer however and it gives me great satisfaction to pretend on the inter webs.
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"
I'm not at all opposed to clarification if parties are concerned. I'm mostly just providing push back on people refusing to discuss it at all.
Honestly, looking at the most recent ORC announcement, WotC is sitting in an empty building. From what I can tell, every major publisher except one and every middling publisher has jumped ship.Basically, WotC can put anything they want into the OGL 1.2, because apparently nobody will be using it. WotC seems to imply that magic missile or owlbear are something they have a copyright on. Looking at ORC, I would say WotC will have to prove that in court. At this point, fans getting agitated about OGL 1.2 is absolutely moot. This will be a license nobody is going to use. Everything publishers working on D&D-adjacent stuff require will most likely be released under ORC via Pathfinder 2. The only ones who will have to use OGL 1.2 are the publishers who want to cater to the upcoming OneD&D edition. At this point, WotC can try to legally battle in court, further losing sympathiy with the roleplaying community,. Or abandon the whole OGL 1.2 project in a last ditch effort to salvage the brand.
D&D was at it's peek three weeks ago. WotC themselves (not any competitor) managed to bring the house down. Yes, D&D will remain profitable. But will it ever again be as popular as in 2022? I highly doubt that. With the overwhelming support ORC is receiving by publishers, all WotC can try to do is salvage what little is left of the D&D brand reputation. OGl 1.2 is already moot before the survey is out. Best bet would be to publicly sincerly apologize and abandon the whole OGL 1.2 venture.
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"
I'm not at all opposed to clarification if parties are concerned. I'm mostly just providing push back on people refusing to discuss it at all.
And I get that. It's just that there are content creators in very real tears right now, worried that a large corporation is going to try and shut down their channel, or patreon, or whatever small niche they've carved for themselves as partners of the brand. They've felt like they're contributing to the hobby for years, increased interest in it, created things that others have consumed and enjoyed, and they currently feel attacked by the company that they've actively promoted.
I understand some people are going too far with their criticism. But I also feel like the response from those defending Hasbro goes too far in the other direction, trying to dismiss any genuine concerns. All it's doing is further aggravating people.
And again, I say this as someone who wants to see 5e succeed, is heavily invested in the ecosystem, and is also actively trying to re-assure people in other channels.
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."
I am not a lawyer, and very unsure of procedure. From this license agreement it does appear that all disputes must be settled in Seattle. I am not a resident of WA and have never participated in court there. The license agreement appears to state that they can terminate the agreement without court involvement if they find you in breach which removes any sort of protections for producers of content and their livelyhood. Not sure if it would hold up in court in Seattle, but if you signed the contract guessing it would.
I am a rules lawyer however and it gives me great satisfaction to pretend on the inter webs.
I haven't talked about these waiver things much cause I haven't given 1.2 a full read through yet to for my opinion of their enforceability. I know there is some arbitration language which I did touch on the commonality of in todays contracts, but arbitration, even binding doesn't always mean there is no option for court. My statement about needing the provisions is more about WotC enforcing it than us enforcing it against them. The choice of forum stuff is also common in contracts. It's a way for parties to mitigate some costs because every state has it's own laws and even when the laws are identical in written form courts often interpret them differently based on existing case law in their jurisdiction.
Honestly, looking at the most recent ORC announcement, WotC is sitting in an empty building. From what I can tell, every major publisher except one and every middling publisher has jumped ship.Basically, WotC can put anything they want into the OGL 1.2, because apparently nobody will be using it. WotC seems to imply that magic missile or owlbear are something they have a copyright on. Looking at ORC, I would say WotC will have to prove that in court. At this point, fans getting agitated about OGL 1.2 is absolutely moot. This will be a license nobody is going to use. Everything publishers working on D&D-adjacent stuff require will most likely be released under ORC via Pathfinder 2. The only ones who will have to use OGL 1.2 are the publishers who want to cater to the upcoming OneD&D edition. At this point, WotC can try to legally battle in court, further losing sympathiy with the roleplaying community,. Or abandon the whole OGL 1.2 project in a last ditch effort to salvage the brand.
D&D was at it's peek three weeks ago. WotC themselves (not any competitor) managed to bring the house down. Yes, D&D will remain profitable. But will it ever again be as popular as in 2022? I highly doubt that. With the overwhelming support ORC is receiving by publishers, all WotC can try to do is salvage what little is left of the D&D brand reputation. OGl 1.2 is already moot before the survey is out. Best bet would be to publicly sincerly apologize and abandon the whole OGL 1.2 venture.
In point of fact, WotC does have a copyright on a number of monsters and any images produced in their books. As they say in the VTT page, they don't care if you create a picture of an owlbear and use it. They care if you take their picture of an owlbear from the Monster Manual and use that. That is an entirely aboveboard protection of their IP.
Dear WotC, I have had animations on my real life, in person tabletop since we were using the overhead projector and Whiteboard in the Student Union conference rooms circa 2005. Okay , technically it was the third session we used that before me and the other ComSci major got it all working, but yeah, ~'05. Hell I had GI-Joes in the 80s that could shoot a glowy blue bolts across my dining room table (or at least the Exosquad action figures could by the 90s). I feel like some of those were made by Hasbro, and your should know better. You know where my old 62" 1020p TV went when i realized I watched all my TV on my PC anyway. My GM's basement, covered with a sheet of Plexiglas, and hooked up to his laptop. Yeah, VTTs have been physically available for 18 years! So good luck on that whole "what you can do at your in person table" standard.
You still can't deauthorize the OGL1.0(a), and even if you can, you should consider the potential liability that comes with 23 years of false promises to consumers and third party developers in your cost benefit analysis (think about defending against ten thousand suites in a hundreds of jurisdictions with different consumer protection laws. No, really ask legal about it)
RE: Objectionable Content If Florida passes a law making Trans obscene (a frighteningly realistic scenario). Per the OGL 1.2 WotC would have to terminate the licenses of any publishers that have trans content in order to continue selling products in the state of Florida. (or at least follow on again, off again injunctions until a SCotUS, present or future, finally rules it unconstitutional). Maybe you will stop selling product in the state of FL instead, but in another maybe it's Texas and the market size demands they follow the new law due do investor rights. How about ERP? Is the new version of the "Book of Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" or "Book of Erotic Fantasy" obscene? Absolutely! But that's really the point. Does that mean they should be scoured from the internet? No! And neither should all the RPOL games that use them. How about that Ancient Egypt sourcebook with Hebrew slaves, is that anti-Semitic? What if a Jordanian, or Palestinian publishes a thinly veiled adventure about creating a secular state in the Levant, that's anti-Zionist, which I'm told is anti-Semitic. So would that have to be banned? Wait, Is banning an ISIS rpg Islamophobic?
These aren't questions you let one company decide on a whim. They are discussions and actually valuable ones in a few of those cases.
No, WotC has to accept free speech or not have an open license. I mean look, offering an "Open license" then declaring this or that user of that license "Wrong!" is really just going to invite Justice Department and FTC probes for anti-competitive business practices anyway. Probably not a great thing to put in a contract. Sincerely, The man with a pretty beard.
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"
I'm not at all opposed to clarification if parties are concerned. I'm mostly just providing push back on people refusing to discuss it at all.
And I get that. It's just that there are content creators in very real tears right now, worried that a large corporation is going to try and shut down their channel, or patreon, or whatever small niche they've carved for themselves as partners of the brand. They've felt like they're contributing to the hobby for years, increased interest in it, created things that others have consumed and enjoyed, and they currently feel attacked by the company that they've actively promoted.
I understand some people are going too far with their criticism. But I also feel like the response from those defending Hasbro goes too far in the other direction, trying to dismiss any genuine concerns. All it's doing is further aggravating people.
And again, I say this as someone who wants to see 5e succeed, is heavily invested in the ecosystem, and is also actively trying to re-assure people in other channels.
There are certainly people on both sides not discussing it in good faith.
People saying that the OGL didn't make D&D popular (now or back in the 2000s) should stop everything and start reading about D&D's history. Seriously.
D&D is big BECAUSE of the 1.0a OGL. Since 2001, the OGL made sure D&D was the lingua franca of the TTRPG industry. Not only did it revive D&D after the end of the TSR era, it established D&D as the de facto industry leader. Read Ryan Dancey's EN World's interview from 2000, and see that he repeatedly states that he's certain that the OGL would be financially beneficial to WotC. 4E failed for many reasons, but an important one was the almost nonexistant 3pp support because the GSL was garbage. D&D EXPLODED in popularity after 2016, when it became open again under the OGL.
Also, D&D is inclusive BECAUSE of the 1.0a OGL. 3pp support guaranteed that inclusivity and representation existed for the D&D audience. The amount of excellent inclusive material published under 3pp support outshines anything that WotC did themselves. EVEN IF we account for a small subset of problematic publications, the amount of good material for the LGBTQ+ and POC and every other community published under 3pp is much, much higher. And that's not even counting the SEVERAL fiascos by WoTC, and THEY want us to believe they should be the moral authority???
The morality argument is just a smoke screen. What they want is control.
Honestly, looking at the most recent ORC announcement, WotC is sitting in an empty building. From what I can tell, every major publisher except one and every middling publisher has jumped ship.Basically, WotC can put anything they want into the OGL 1.2, because apparently nobody will be using it.
This is a claim that gets thrown around a lot. It also is pure speculation based on statements by companies trying to increase their own reputation and business’ profitability while the major competitor stumbled.
But present taking advantage of a rival’s PR failings is not necessarily indicative of the future. The simple reality is that D&D is far and away the largest game in the TTRPG sphere—it is not even close. D&D is the only game in the TTRPG sphere with actual name recognition outside of the sphere - you can ask random people on the street if they have heard of D&D, and you’ll get upwards of 90% to respond with a yes—Pathfinder, the next biggest game, is not going to come anywhere close to that.
D&D is a wedding cake; the next closest competitor is a petite four.
That makes OGL 1.2 incredibly valuable to third party producers—the ability to put a Wizards of the Coast, official D&D trademark (the Creator Product badge) on your book immediately and clearly signifies “this is part of the game you actually know and the overwhelming majority of you play.” That ability, to cut off a piece of the D&D cake, is all but certainly going to be far more lucrative than anything that ORC can come up with—no matter what they include, they’ll never be able to put the D&D ampersand on the product under ORC.
Time will only tell what will happen, but, I suspect that, once some of this dust settles and creators realise 1.2 is a really good deal, they’ll realise a slice of cake is far better than a crumb of petite four.
Dear WotC, I have had animations on my real life, in person tabletop since we were using the overhead projector and Whiteboard in the Student Union conference rooms circa 2005. Okay , technically it was the third session we used that before me and the other ComSci major got it all working, but yeah, ~'05. Hell I had GI-Joes in the 80s that could shoot a glowy blue bolts across my dining room table (or at least the Exosquad action figures could by the 90s). I feel like some of those were made by Hasbro, and your should know better. You know where my old 62" 1020p TV went when i realized I watched all my TV on my PC anyway. My GM's basement, covered with a sheet of Plexiglas, and hooked up to his laptop. Yeah, VTTs have been physically available for 18 years! So good luck on that whole "what you can do at your in person table" standard.
You still can't deauthorize the OGL1.0(a), and even if you can, you should consider the potential liability that comes with 23 years of false promises to consumers and third party developers in your cost benefit analysis (think about defending against ten thousand suites in a hundreds of jurisdictions with different consumer protection laws. No, really ask legal about it)
RE: Objectionable Content If Florida passes a law making Trans obscene (a frighteningly realistic scenario). Per the OGL 1.2 WotC would have to terminate the licenses of any publishers that have trans content in order to continue selling products in the state of Florida. (At least face on again, off again injunctions until a SCotUS, present or future, finally rules it unconstitutional). Maybe WotC will stop selling product in the state of FL instead, but in another maybe it's Texas and the market size demands they follow the new law due do investor rights. How about ERP? Is the new version of the "Book of Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" or "Book of Erotic Fantasy" obscene? Absolutely! But that's really the point. Does that mean they should be scoured from the internet? No! And neither should all the RPOL games that use them. How about that Ancient Egypt sourcebook with Hebrew slaves, is that anti-Semitic? What if a Jordanian, or Palestinian publishes a thinly veiled adventure about creating a secular state in the Levant, that's anti-Zionist, which I'm told is anti-Semitic. So would that have to be banned? Wait, Is banning an ISIS rpg Islamophobic?
These aren't questions you let one company decide on a whim. They are discussions and actually valuable ones in a few of those cases.
No, WotC has to accept free speech or not have an open license. I mean look, offering an "Open license" then declaring this or that user of that license "Wrong!" is really just going to invite Justice Department and FTC probes for anti-competitive business practices anyway. Probably not a great thing to put in a contract. Sincerely, The man with a pretty beard.
They won't be forced to do anything based on whatever fresh idiocy comes out of Florida because Free Speech; they aren't using some officially curated definition of "obscene" or "offensive", if such a thing even exists. They're using "we'll know it when we see it", which while it does let everyone get stirred up about the idea that WotC will use it as some kind of bludgeon, is not really that unreasonable considering it is their brand image that can be impacted by association with anything that gets produced under the license. If they do start coming after us we can walk then, but at this point it's much more some boogeyman people have conjured up to play into the "WotC execs are evil demons out for your soul and your art" theme that's been being fomented since the initial document leaked than a serious possibility.
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."
You are wrong here.
Under current clause, your product says "The longsword does 1d8 damage". Wizards can say "your product was racist because it lacked tribal reason, and as per OGL 1.2 we have the final say in this mater, so you no longer have permission to use the content" which would be dishonest. But if you would say they would point out that you accepted a license, where it says they will have the final say in the matter. You lose, and that will be used against you...
This kind of clause is a problem.
If they would have detailed guidelines for the moralty cause, breaking them would mean automatic license termination AND some penalties you would also have to pay and Wizards would sue you in a neutral court at a fair trial and if you would be hateful you would lose not only the license but serious money?
That would be okay. Guess why Wizards chosen the wrong kind of morality clause?
There would still be grounds to challenge that clause as enforced by WotC. Contract Interpretation is a question of law, and one parties opinion of what the terms mean isn't decisive. Especially if there is no specific list of what is considered immoral or offensive. The example you give would at the very least be challengeable under equity and estopple, and WotC enforcing in obviously unintended way could hurt them by opening the contract to redrafting by the court resulting from mistake of the parties.
They are never going to put an exhaustive list in, but I agree having at least concrete examples would be beneficial
Honestly, looking at the most recent ORC announcement, WotC is sitting in an empty building. From what I can tell, every major publisher except one and every middling publisher has jumped ship.Basically, WotC can put anything they want into the OGL 1.2, because apparently nobody will be using it. WotC seems to imply that magic missile or owlbear are something they have a copyright on. Looking at ORC, I would say WotC will have to prove that in court. At this point, fans getting agitated about OGL 1.2 is absolutely moot. This will be a license nobody is going to use. Everything publishers working on D&D-adjacent stuff require will most likely be released under ORC via Pathfinder 2. The only ones who will have to use OGL 1.2 are the publishers who want to cater to the upcoming OneD&D edition. At this point, WotC can try to legally battle in court, further losing sympathiy with the roleplaying community,. Or abandon the whole OGL 1.2 project in a last ditch effort to salvage the brand.
D&D was at it's peek three weeks ago. WotC themselves (not any competitor) managed to bring the house down. Yes, D&D will remain profitable. But will it ever again be as popular as in 2022? I highly doubt that. With the overwhelming support ORC is receiving by publishers, all WotC can try to do is salvage what little is left of the D&D brand reputation. OGl 1.2 is already moot before the survey is out. Best bet would be to publicly sincerly apologize and abandon the whole OGL 1.2 venture.
In point of fact, WotC does have a copyright on a number of monsters and any images produced in their books. As they say in the VTT page, they don't care if you create a picture of an owlbear and use it. They care if you take their picture of an owlbear from the Monster Manual and use that. That is an entirely aboveboard protection of their IP.
Yes that is completely correct. But I am talking about the word "owlbear" or "magic missile" and their associated game mechanics. Writing Owlbear stats for a 4+2 HD monster isn't that hard and not dependend on OGL 1.2. The same goes for a spell called magic missile.
I wouldn't sign anything with the 'anti-hate' concept in 6f... in today's world where anything written, spoken or otherwise thought by ANYONE can be considered hate speech by someone, tying a future contract with no recourse seems like a bad idea to me.
Especially when you are talking about a world that has EVIL people, evil people do evil things, thus why they are evil... An evil person doesn't give a darn about 'racial equality' or any other moral compass, if they did, they wouldn't be evil. Do I believe that should be part of the REAL world? No, but we are talking about story telling and creating compelling villains and such. If all of your Villans have to be 'politically correct' how do you generate a compelling villain that the heros WANT to defeat? And just about every story has 'murder' involved, thus could easily be considered containing illegal content...
Are there lines to not cross, absolutely, but leaving WotC as the sole arbiter of where the line is crossed is a very poor design.
Wotc, you folks are so incredibly out of touch, Im not shre where to start.
The good first ( though woefully below the bar) you deicded to not steal content from people, thats ...good I guess. You have decided not to try to take money from people that isnt yours also good. You are still trying to strangle the VTT Market space (please dont tell me you really confuse it with a video game because it has a littel animation thats as believable as " this was a draft" & "we both won" statements). VTT - for the msot part are not system specific and support more than one with some supporting many. Just stop ... please. Remove the VTT policy and replace it with a clear statement that any NFT usage with your products will invalidate the License and will be enforced regardless of where it is. Though given your current behaviour I would not be at all shocked to see NFT and blockchains in future prototypes of your own software in the future.
The idea that you want to define an entire segment of people because the pixels move on thier spell in a vtt is petty and childish.
Lastly keep the OGL1a in place for all 5e content or loose another segment of your DNDbeyond subs to churn as people migrate to a less tyrannical and more customer centric company like Piazo ( or any one of the dozens of others ) Stop setting your business on fire please.
Wotc, you folks are so incredibly out of touch, Im not shre where to start.
The good first ( though woefully below the bar) you deicded to not steal content from people, thats ...good I guess. You have decided not to try to take money from people that isnt yours also good. You are still trying to strangle the VTT Market space (please dont tell me you really confuse it with a video game because it has a littel animation thats as believable as " this was a draft" & "we both won" statements). VTT - for the msot part are not system specific and support more than one with some supporting many. Just stop ... please. Remove the VTT policy and replace it with a clear statement that any NFT usage with your products will invalidate the License and will be enforced regardless of where it is. Though given your current behaviour I would not be at all shocked to see NFT and blockchains in future prototypes of your own software in the future.
The idea that you want to define an entire segment of people because the pixels move on thier spell in a vtt is petty and childish.
Lastly keep the OGL1a in place for all 5e content or loose another segment of your DNDbeyond subs to churn as people migrate to a less tyrannical and more customer centric company like Piazo ( or any one of the dozens of others ) Stop setting your business on fire please.
But they can "accidentally" steal content from people. And you have to prove intent to stop them claim damages. You can't actually stop them even then.
Honestly, looking at the most recent ORC announcement, WotC is sitting in an empty building. From what I can tell, every major publisher except one and every middling publisher has jumped ship.Basically, WotC can put anything they want into the OGL 1.2, because apparently nobody will be using it.
This is a claim that gets thrown around a lot. It also is pure speculation based on statements by companies trying to increase their own reputation and business’ profitability while the major competitor stumbled.
But present taking advantage of a rival’s PR failings is not necessarily indicative of the future. The simple reality is that D&D is far and away the largest game in the TTRPG sphere—it is not even close. D&D is the only game in the TTRPG sphere with actual name recognition outside of the sphere - you can ask random people on the street if they have heard of D&D, and you’ll get upwards of 90% to respond with a yes—Pathfinder, the next biggest game, is not going to come anywhere close to that.
D&D is a wedding cake; the next closest competitor is a petite four.
That makes OGL 1.2 incredibly valuable to third party producers—the ability to put a Wizards of the Coast, official D&D trademark (the Creator Product badge) on your book immediately and clearly signifies “this is part of the game you actually know and the overwhelming majority of you play.” That ability, to cut off a piece of the D&D cake, is all but certainly going to be far more lucrative than anything that ORC can come up with—no matter what they include, they’ll never be able to put the D&D ampersand on the product under ORC.
Time will only tell what will happen, but, I suspect that, once some of this dust settles and creators realise 1.2 is a really good deal, they’ll realise a slice of cake is far better than a crumb of petite four.
But that's it: OGL 1.2 is a bad deal. The morality clause that doesn't only cover your books, but also your public conduct make it easy to stop any publisher who is getting to successful. This is not an "Open" Game License this is a "D&D" Game License. Only those creators who are publishing for the 5e crowd or later OneD&D crowd have to take it. And honestly, even today you don't need the ampersand. All it takes is claiming compatibility with "the world's largest/most famous/first/etc role-playing game". People will know what this is. Exactly because of brand recognition. Currently, nobody except WotC can put the ampersand on their products, yet third party product still sell like crazy. Which is also due to the fact that WotC is only selling half-a-dozen new books each year. Because flooding the market with books was exactly what killed 3.5.
If your savy, you don't have to put any rules, spell descripitions, . monsters stats into your books. Just use the name, don't worry about stats.
You are also right about the market share of D&D vs other RPGs. But there was a time when Paizo was the market leader for a couple of years. WotC might not be losing credibility with players who only play D&D, but it's losing credibility with gamers who play other RPGs besides D&D. These are usually the gamemasters. Gamemasters often determine what's being played at their table. Also, influencers have been burned by recent events. If they move on, and if their following is loyal, huge amounts of people will move on. I've seen critical statements from people with 100.000+ followers. That is nothing to sneez at. There are RPGs out there, that wish they had 100.000 fans.
Dear WotC, I have had animations on my real life, in person tabletop since we were using the overhead projector and Whiteboard in the Student Union conference rooms circa 2005. Okay , technically it was the third session we used that before me and the other ComSci major got it all working, but yeah, ~'05. Hell I had GI-Joes in the 80s that could shoot a glowy blue bolts across my dining room table (or at least the Exosquad action figures could by the 90s). I feel like some of those were made by Hasbro, and your should know better. You know where my old 62" 1020p TV went when i realized I watched all my TV on my PC anyway. My GM's basement, covered with a sheet of Plexiglas, and hooked up to his laptop. Yeah, VTTs have been physically available for 18 years! So good luck on that whole "what you can do at your in person table" standard.
You still can't deauthorize the OGL1.0(a), and even if you can, you should consider the potential liability that comes with 23 years of false promises to consumers and third party developers in your cost benefit analysis (think about defending against ten thousand suites in a hundreds of jurisdictions with different consumer protection laws. No, really ask legal about it)
RE: Objectionable Content If Florida passes a law making Trans obscene (a frighteningly realistic scenario). Per the OGL 1.2 WotC would have to terminate the licenses of any publishers that have trans content in order to continue selling products in the state of Florida. (At least face on again, off again injunctions until a SCotUS, present or future, finally rules it unconstitutional). Maybe WotC will stop selling product in the state of FL instead, but in another maybe it's Texas and the market size demands they follow the new law due do investor rights. How about ERP? Is the new version of the "Book of Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" or "Book of Erotic Fantasy" obscene? Absolutely! But that's really the point. Does that mean they should be scoured from the internet? No! And neither should all the RPOL games that use them. How about that Ancient Egypt sourcebook with Hebrew slaves, is that anti-Semitic? What if a Jordanian, or Palestinian publishes a thinly veiled adventure about creating a secular state in the Levant, that's anti-Zionist, which I'm told is anti-Semitic. So would that have to be banned? Wait, Is banning an ISIS rpg Islamophobic?
These aren't questions you let one company decide on a whim. They are discussions and actually valuable ones in a few of those cases.
No, WotC has to accept free speech or not have an open license. I mean look, offering an "Open license" then declaring this or that user of that license "Wrong!" is really just going to invite Justice Department and FTC probes for anti-competitive business practices anyway. Probably not a great thing to put in a contract. Sincerely, The man with a pretty beard.
They won't be forced to do anything based on whatever fresh idiocy comes out of Florida because Free Speech; they aren't using some officially curated definition of "obscene" or "offensive", if such a thing even exists. They're using "we'll know it when we see it", which while it does let everyone get stirred up about the idea that WotC will use it as some kind of bludgeon, is not really that unreasonable considering it is their brand image that can be impacted by association with anything that gets produced under the license. If they do start coming after us we can walk then, but at this point it's much more some boogeyman people have conjured up to play into the "WotC execs are evil demons out for your soul and your art" theme that's been being fomented since the initial document leaked than a serious possibility.
Actually the reserved right of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce clause of the constitution is the better argument here. But it hasn't stopped cross-border product bans before. Free speech explicitly excludes obscenity and obscenity can be defined per jurisdiction.
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.
Orcs only made it into D&D due to their presence in the literature. If over the years they've somehow come to take on characteristics that seem to be rendering them a dehumanizing depiction of others, then that is unfortunate, and maybe Wizards need to be held accountable.
It isn't a chicken-egg situation at all. Racism is complex. Different cultures with different faiths and different traditions have different ideas about what is racist. I know. I am an ethnically complex individual who has been living and working abroad for twelve years. Different scholars whose work revolves around race have different ideas about what is racist, as well. And frankly, as someone who is ethnically complex, I tend to pay attention to my own instincts and to what certain scholars are saying. Not to people who imagine racism is so simple and so black-and-white.
Who are "they"? Are you really going to suggest that an entire ethnicity is an ideological monolith? That they all think and act the same? Because that would be ...
WotC has been held accountable for it. That's why they have been working to change it.
Racism is indeed complex and as an very white guy I don't claim to be an authority. That's why I base my opinion as I said. No that doesn't make them a monolith, I base it on the consensus of those impacted. You are right there are a lot of differing opinions, you gave one that differs from those I follow. I think we can leave it at that and agree neither of us want racism in our game
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
things I need to see before I would consider excepting
1) the new SRD
2) the contents of the Creative Content “core rules license”
3) A dispute Resolution mechanic that does not involve giving away the signatories rights
I am not a lawyer, and very unsure of procedure. From this license agreement it does appear that all disputes must be settled in Seattle. I am not a resident of WA and have never participated in court there. The license agreement appears to state that they can terminate the agreement without court involvement if they find you in breach which removes any sort of protections for producers of content and their livelyhood. Not sure if it would hold up in court in Seattle, but if you signed the contract guessing it would.
I am a rules lawyer however and it gives me great satisfaction to pretend on the inter webs.
I'm not at all opposed to clarification if parties are concerned. I'm mostly just providing push back on people refusing to discuss it at all.
Honestly, looking at the most recent ORC announcement, WotC is sitting in an empty building. From what I can tell, every major publisher except one and every middling publisher has jumped ship.Basically, WotC can put anything they want into the OGL 1.2, because apparently nobody will be using it. WotC seems to imply that magic missile or owlbear are something they have a copyright on. Looking at ORC, I would say WotC will have to prove that in court. At this point, fans getting agitated about OGL 1.2 is absolutely moot. This will be a license nobody is going to use. Everything publishers working on D&D-adjacent stuff require will most likely be released under ORC via Pathfinder 2. The only ones who will have to use OGL 1.2 are the publishers who want to cater to the upcoming OneD&D edition. At this point, WotC can try to legally battle in court, further losing sympathiy with the roleplaying community,. Or abandon the whole OGL 1.2 project in a last ditch effort to salvage the brand.
D&D was at it's peek three weeks ago. WotC themselves (not any competitor) managed to bring the house down. Yes, D&D will remain profitable. But will it ever again be as popular as in 2022? I highly doubt that. With the overwhelming support ORC is receiving by publishers, all WotC can try to do is salvage what little is left of the D&D brand reputation. OGl 1.2 is already moot before the survey is out. Best bet would be to publicly sincerly apologize and abandon the whole OGL 1.2 venture.
And I get that. It's just that there are content creators in very real tears right now, worried that a large corporation is going to try and shut down their channel, or patreon, or whatever small niche they've carved for themselves as partners of the brand. They've felt like they're contributing to the hobby for years, increased interest in it, created things that others have consumed and enjoyed, and they currently feel attacked by the company that they've actively promoted.
I understand some people are going too far with their criticism. But I also feel like the response from those defending Hasbro goes too far in the other direction, trying to dismiss any genuine concerns. All it's doing is further aggravating people.
And again, I say this as someone who wants to see 5e succeed, is heavily invested in the ecosystem, and is also actively trying to re-assure people in other channels.
I haven't talked about these waiver things much cause I haven't given 1.2 a full read through yet to for my opinion of their enforceability. I know there is some arbitration language which I did touch on the commonality of in todays contracts, but arbitration, even binding doesn't always mean there is no option for court. My statement about needing the provisions is more about WotC enforcing it than us enforcing it against them. The choice of forum stuff is also common in contracts. It's a way for parties to mitigate some costs because every state has it's own laws and even when the laws are identical in written form courts often interpret them differently based on existing case law in their jurisdiction.
In point of fact, WotC does have a copyright on a number of monsters and any images produced in their books. As they say in the VTT page, they don't care if you create a picture of an owlbear and use it. They care if you take their picture of an owlbear from the Monster Manual and use that. That is an entirely aboveboard protection of their IP.
Dear WotC,
I have had animations on my real life, in person tabletop since we were using the overhead projector and Whiteboard in the Student Union conference rooms circa 2005. Okay , technically it was the third session we used that before me and the other ComSci major got it all working, but yeah, ~'05. Hell I had GI-Joes in the 80s that could shoot a glowy blue bolts across my dining room table (or at least the Exosquad action figures could by the 90s). I feel like some of those were made by Hasbro, and your should know better. You know where my old 62" 1020p TV went when i realized I watched all my TV on my PC anyway. My GM's basement, covered with a sheet of Plexiglas, and hooked up to his laptop. Yeah, VTTs have been physically available for 18 years! So good luck on that whole "what you can do at your in person table" standard.
You still can't deauthorize the OGL1.0(a), and even if you can, you should consider the potential liability that comes with 23 years of false promises to consumers and third party developers in your cost benefit analysis (think about defending against ten thousand suites in a hundreds of jurisdictions with different consumer protection laws. No, really ask legal about it)
RE: Objectionable Content
If Florida passes a law making Trans obscene (a frighteningly realistic scenario). Per the OGL 1.2 WotC would have to terminate the licenses of any publishers that have trans content in order to continue selling products in the state of Florida. (or at least follow on again, off again injunctions until a SCotUS, present or future, finally rules it unconstitutional). Maybe you will stop selling product in the state of FL instead, but in another maybe it's Texas and the market size demands they follow the new law due do investor rights.
How about ERP? Is the new version of the "Book of Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" or "Book of Erotic Fantasy" obscene? Absolutely! But that's really the point. Does that mean they should be scoured from the internet? No! And neither should all the RPOL games that use them. How about that Ancient Egypt sourcebook with Hebrew slaves, is that anti-Semitic? What if a Jordanian, or Palestinian publishes a thinly veiled adventure about creating a secular state in the Levant, that's anti-Zionist, which I'm told is anti-Semitic. So would that have to be banned? Wait, Is banning an ISIS rpg Islamophobic?
These aren't questions you let one company decide on a whim. They are discussions and actually valuable ones in a few of those cases.
No, WotC has to accept free speech or not have an open license. I mean look, offering an "Open license" then declaring this or that user of that license "Wrong!" is really just going to invite Justice Department and FTC probes for anti-competitive business practices anyway. Probably not a great thing to put in a contract.
Sincerely,
The man with a pretty beard.
There are certainly people on both sides not discussing it in good faith.
People saying that the OGL didn't make D&D popular (now or back in the 2000s) should stop everything and start reading about D&D's history. Seriously.
D&D is big BECAUSE of the 1.0a OGL. Since 2001, the OGL made sure D&D was the lingua franca of the TTRPG industry. Not only did it revive D&D after the end of the TSR era, it established D&D as the de facto industry leader. Read Ryan Dancey's EN World's interview from 2000, and see that he repeatedly states that he's certain that the OGL would be financially beneficial to WotC. 4E failed for many reasons, but an important one was the almost nonexistant 3pp support because the GSL was garbage. D&D EXPLODED in popularity after 2016, when it became open again under the OGL.
Also, D&D is inclusive BECAUSE of the 1.0a OGL. 3pp support guaranteed that inclusivity and representation existed for the D&D audience. The amount of excellent inclusive material published under 3pp support outshines anything that WotC did themselves. EVEN IF we account for a small subset of problematic publications, the amount of good material for the LGBTQ+ and POC and every other community published under 3pp is much, much higher. And that's not even counting the SEVERAL fiascos by WoTC, and THEY want us to believe they should be the moral authority???
The morality argument is just a smoke screen. What they want is control.
This is a claim that gets thrown around a lot. It also is pure speculation based on statements by companies trying to increase their own reputation and business’ profitability while the major competitor stumbled.
But present taking advantage of a rival’s PR failings is not necessarily indicative of the future. The simple reality is that D&D is far and away the largest game in the TTRPG sphere—it is not even close. D&D is the only game in the TTRPG sphere with actual name recognition outside of the sphere - you can ask random people on the street if they have heard of D&D, and you’ll get upwards of 90% to respond with a yes—Pathfinder, the next biggest game, is not going to come anywhere close to that.
D&D is a wedding cake; the next closest competitor is a petite four.
That makes OGL 1.2 incredibly valuable to third party producers—the ability to put a Wizards of the Coast, official D&D trademark (the Creator Product badge) on your book immediately and clearly signifies “this is part of the game you actually know and the overwhelming majority of you play.” That ability, to cut off a piece of the D&D cake, is all but certainly going to be far more lucrative than anything that ORC can come up with—no matter what they include, they’ll never be able to put the D&D ampersand on the product under ORC.
Time will only tell what will happen, but, I suspect that, once some of this dust settles and creators realise 1.2 is a really good deal, they’ll realise a slice of cake is far better than a crumb of petite four.
They won't be forced to do anything based on whatever fresh idiocy comes out of Florida because Free Speech; they aren't using some officially curated definition of "obscene" or "offensive", if such a thing even exists. They're using "we'll know it when we see it", which while it does let everyone get stirred up about the idea that WotC will use it as some kind of bludgeon, is not really that unreasonable considering it is their brand image that can be impacted by association with anything that gets produced under the license. If they do start coming after us we can walk then, but at this point it's much more some boogeyman people have conjured up to play into the "WotC execs are evil demons out for your soul and your art" theme that's been being fomented since the initial document leaked than a serious possibility.
There would still be grounds to challenge that clause as enforced by WotC. Contract Interpretation is a question of law, and one parties opinion of what the terms mean isn't decisive. Especially if there is no specific list of what is considered immoral or offensive. The example you give would at the very least be challengeable under equity and estopple, and WotC enforcing in obviously unintended way could hurt them by opening the contract to redrafting by the court resulting from mistake of the parties.
They are never going to put an exhaustive list in, but I agree having at least concrete examples would be beneficial
Yes that is completely correct. But I am talking about the word "owlbear" or "magic missile" and their associated game mechanics. Writing Owlbear stats for a 4+2 HD monster isn't that hard and not dependend on OGL 1.2. The same goes for a spell called magic missile.
I wouldn't sign anything with the 'anti-hate' concept in 6f... in today's world where anything written, spoken or otherwise thought by ANYONE can be considered hate speech by someone, tying a future contract with no recourse seems like a bad idea to me.
Especially when you are talking about a world that has EVIL people, evil people do evil things, thus why they are evil... An evil person doesn't give a darn about 'racial equality' or any other moral compass, if they did, they wouldn't be evil. Do I believe that should be part of the REAL world? No, but we are talking about story telling and creating compelling villains and such. If all of your Villans have to be 'politically correct' how do you generate a compelling villain that the heros WANT to defeat? And just about every story has 'murder' involved, thus could easily be considered containing illegal content...
Are there lines to not cross, absolutely, but leaving WotC as the sole arbiter of where the line is crossed is a very poor design.
Wotc, you folks are so incredibly out of touch, Im not shre where to start.
The good first ( though woefully below the bar) you deicded to not steal content from people, thats ...good I guess. You have decided not to try to take money from people that isnt yours also good. You are still trying to strangle the VTT Market space (please dont tell me you really confuse it with a video game because it has a littel animation thats as believable as " this was a draft" & "we both won" statements). VTT - for the msot part are not system specific and support more than one with some supporting many. Just stop ... please. Remove the VTT policy and replace it with a clear statement that any NFT usage with your products will invalidate the License and will be enforced regardless of where it is. Though given your current behaviour I would not be at all shocked to see NFT and blockchains in future prototypes of your own software in the future.
The idea that you want to define an entire segment of people because the pixels move on thier spell in a vtt is petty and childish.
Lastly keep the OGL1a in place for all 5e content or loose another segment of your DNDbeyond subs to churn as people migrate to a less tyrannical and more customer centric company like Piazo ( or any one of the dozens of others )
Stop setting your business on fire please.
But they can "accidentally" steal content from people. And you have to prove intent to
stop themclaim damages. You can't actually stop them even then.But that's it: OGL 1.2 is a bad deal. The morality clause that doesn't only cover your books, but also your public conduct make it easy to stop any publisher who is getting to successful. This is not an "Open" Game License this is a "D&D" Game License. Only those creators who are publishing for the 5e crowd or later OneD&D crowd have to take it. And honestly, even today you don't need the ampersand. All it takes is claiming compatibility with "the world's largest/most famous/first/etc role-playing game". People will know what this is. Exactly because of brand recognition. Currently, nobody except WotC can put the ampersand on their products, yet third party product still sell like crazy. Which is also due to the fact that WotC is only selling half-a-dozen new books each year. Because flooding the market with books was exactly what killed 3.5.
If your savy, you don't have to put any rules, spell descripitions, . monsters stats into your books. Just use the name, don't worry about stats.
You are also right about the market share of D&D vs other RPGs. But there was a time when Paizo was the market leader for a couple of years. WotC might not be losing credibility with players who only play D&D, but it's losing credibility with gamers who play other RPGs besides D&D. These are usually the gamemasters. Gamemasters often determine what's being played at their table. Also, influencers have been burned by recent events. If they move on, and if their following is loyal, huge amounts of people will move on. I've seen critical statements from people with 100.000+ followers. That is nothing to sneez at. There are RPGs out there, that wish they had 100.000 fans.
Actually the reserved right of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce clause of the constitution is the better argument here. But it hasn't stopped cross-border product bans before. Free speech explicitly excludes obscenity and obscenity can be defined per jurisdiction.
WotC has been held accountable for it. That's why they have been working to change it.
Racism is indeed complex and as an very white guy I don't claim to be an authority. That's why I base my opinion as I said. No that doesn't make them a monolith, I base it on the consensus of those impacted. You are right there are a lot of differing opinions, you gave one that differs from those I follow. I think we can leave it at that and agree neither of us want racism in our game