It doesn't matter, actually this 1.2 says practically the same as 1.1 said. This is what WoTC wants to do and no survey is going to change it.
- They want to be able to control the content published under the OGL. Even plagiarize it. - They want to control the VTT market focused on D&D. They basically want you to use theirs, and only theirs. And that you pay every month, pay for microtransactions, etc... - They want any D&D video game to have to go through them. - They want to prevent another publishing house from passing to the right again under the auspices of the OGL.
Is what they want legitimate? I'm not saying no. What is not legitimate is that they annul 1.0a But if they don't, they can't guarantee what they want, then they're going to do it anyway. We are the ones who have to tell them that we are not going to go there. That they can't do it.
I'm going to suggest that people screenshot and save their answers, then when WotC decide to use their "survey" to manipulate the data, we can show them that we still say no.
Is this draft better than what was leaked? Yes. Is it good? No. The morality clause is far too open to abuse, the waiving of a right to trial by jury is a major red flag, and the kicker is the severability clause. That clause gives the owner the ability to throw the whole thing out if part of it is declared invalid. What exactly is there to stop WOTC or some future owner from adding something in that they know is invalid or unenforceable in order to get this junked? And what guarantee do we have that they won’t try to deauthorize 1.2 like they are with 1.0a?
As for the Creative Commons part, that’s purely a PR move. Game mechanics can’t be copyrighted, meaning there’s nothing stopping anyone from using that material anyways. It’s meant to look like WOTC is giving people something, but the reality is we always had it.
Overall, I’m not happy with this new version. It relies too much on trust in WOTC and Hasbro that I simply don’t have. They need to do a lot of work both in general and on this issue specifically if they’re going to win back my trust.
Is this draft better than what was leaked? Yes. Is it good? No. The morality clause is far too open to abuse, the waiving of a right to trial by jury is a major red flag, and the kicker is the severability clause. That clause gives the owner the ability to throw the whole thing out if part of it is declared invalid. What exactly is there to stop WOTC or some future owner from adding something in that they know is invalid or unenforceable in order to get this junked? And what guarantee do we have that they won’t try to deauthorize 1.2 like they are with 1.0a?
As for the Creative Commons part, that’s purely a PR move. Game mechanics can’t be copyrighted, meaning there’s nothing stopping anyone from using that material anyways. It’s meant to look like WOTC is giving people something, but the reality is we always had it.
Overall, I’m not happy with this new version. It relies too much on trust in WOTC and Hasbro that I simply don’t have. They need to do a lot of work both in general and on this issue specifically if they’re going to win back my trust.
They don't need to deauthorize 1.2, they can change it whenever they want.
What's an example of the kind of thing where WotC would intervene with their moral police clause? Maybe I am being naive, but I think third-party publishers usually go for mass appeal (so nothing too controversial). What exactly do they imagine could happen in the future, where they would use their OGL to selectively revoke someone's license?
The morality clause is far too open to abuse, the waiving of a right to trial by jury is a major red flag, and the kicker is the severability clause. That clause gives the owner the ability to throw the whole thing out if part of it is declared invalid.
The problem with OGL is very different, yet some people refuse to understand a few problem, and it points to a fundamental problem.
d20 OGL is used by many games that aren't based on D&D, and it is used on system agnostic content, as it was encouraged. It minimized the chances where incompatible licenses would cause mayhem for people who would want to use open content from multiple sources. It was a default open licence, essentially used by many people, for projects that don't even touch a single rule from D&D. Yet the clause about updating the SRD and authorizing new versions raise a question: Will these people authorize to use the terms of OGL 1.2 for their game? And who would make decisions about the morality clause, in the case where we don't see D&D content, but people willing to contribute stuff to OGL market?
If OGL 1.2 isn't acceptable on this market, and most of these content remain strictly under 1.0a and people would want to use both these content AND content that is released under 1.2 we end up with very interesting problems.
I do not see the problem. This already happened with 4e.
4e was under the GSL, but OGL 1.0a was still around. Two different licenses for different things. Even more. When OGL 1.0a was created, the D20 license also existed. Two different WoTC licenses, and they coexisted without problem.
Then they could make another license and put SRD5.1 in it, if they want. But what is not legitimate is that they cancel the 1.0a
Why are they actually overriding 1.0a? Because if they don't, they can't develop their strategy for the next few years. And that consists of:
- Control the VTT market. Basically having the monopoly (at least when it comes to D&D). - Control the D&D video game market. - Control the content of third parties, and the intellectual property of what is published under the OGL.
This not a childish outrage as you are making it out to be.
I'm not making anything out to be childish outrage. I'm saying justified concern becomes something else over time. Then, I use myself as an example - in which, yes, I point out that my behaviour may be seen as childish and immature, but that's not the point of the parallel.
Anyways.
You're not incorrect that certain technologies existed when the OGL was made. On the other hand, you're not right either. They weren't by any means matured, and they didn't hold any clear market value. They do today - today, it may well be argued that those technologies are the future of this market.
But anyways, all the concerns I've seen (and as I've stated, I'm rather on the fringe of this fight) have been addressed. There's the question of VTT's, but as I pointed out elsewhere, that's propably simply 100% necessary. One could easily publish a game like Baldur's Gate 3, make it so 6 players could play CO-OP, and claim it's a VTT, and thus license free. Even more - you could publish a 'VTT' as an engine, then market at string of 'Adventures' for that engine, basically what would amount to Baldur's Gate 1+2+3+expansions.
Also, since the whole point here is that WoTC invite to debate, maybe outrage isn't the best reaction.
Outrage works for a while, but if you do not - at some point - take a deep breath and start speaking in a normal tone of voice, the counterpart simply stops listening.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
The morality clause is far too open to abuse, the waiving of a right to trial by jury is a major red flag, and the kicker is the severability clause. That clause gives the owner the ability to throw the whole thing out if part of it is declared invalid.
The problem with OGL is very different, yet some people refuse to understand a few problem, and it points to a fundamental problem.
d20 OGL is used by many games that aren't based on D&D, and it is used on system agnostic content, as it was encouraged. It minimized the chances where incompatible licenses would cause mayhem for people who would want to use open content from multiple sources. It was a default open licence, essentially used by many people, for projects that don't even touch a single rule from D&D. Yet the clause about updating the SRD and authorizing new versions raise a question: Will these people authorize to use the terms of OGL 1.2 for their game? And who would make decisions about the morality clause, in the case where we don't see D&D content, but people willing to contribute stuff to OGL market?
If OGL 1.2 isn't acceptable on this market, and most of these content remain strictly under 1.0a and people would want to use both these content AND content that is released under 1.2 we end up with very interesting problems.
I do not see the problem. This already happened with 4e.
4e was under the GSL, but OGL 1.0a was still around. Two different licenses for different things. Even more. When OGL 1.0a was created, the D20 license also existed. Two different WoTC licenses, and they coexisted without problem.
Then they could make another license and put SRD5.1 in it, if they want. But what is not legitimate is that they cancel the 1.0a
Why are they actually overriding 1.0a? Because if they don't, they can't develop their strategy for the next few years. And that consists of:
- Control the VTT market. Basically having the monopoly (at least when it comes to D&D). - Control the D&D video game market. - Control the content of third parties, and the intellectual property of what is published under the OGL.
- Control the VTT market. Basically having the monopoly (at least when it comes to D&D). - Control the D&D video game market. - Control the content of third parties, and the intellectual property of what is published under the OGL.
While this is basically what I'm also arguing, I doubt they really want to monopolize the VTT market. I think they just want to make sure the VTT market becomes a backdoor to license free D&D video games. But otherwise, yes, this is my point exactly, just in clearer language *thumbs up*
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
While this is basically what I'm also arguing, I doubt they really want to monopolize the VTT market
Honestly this is kind of the first thing I'd expect them to try to do longterm. Having a monopoly would allow them to charge for a whole range of services, large companies always choose to monopolize methods of distribution when they consider it profitable. (E.g. Steam and every games company that's tried to emulate steam)
I keep reading about the Gygax Quote. I think it's from this interview in 2005 where he is discussing Lawful Good and the propensity for LG to kill enemies who are no longer fighting. Please note that I am quoting a quote so I can not guarantee it is accurate but I've seen it floating around for ages.
"Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old adage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before they can backslide.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good. Prisoners guilty of murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. Hanging is likely the usual method of such execution, although it might be beheading, strangulation, etc. A paladin is likely a figure that would be considered a fair judge of criminal conduct.
The Anglo-Saxon punishment for **** and/or murder of a woman was as follows: tearing off of the scalp, cutting off of the ears and nose, blinding, chopping off of the feet and hands, and leaving the criminal beside the road for all bypassers to see. I don't know if they cauterized the limb stumps or not before doing that. It was said that a woman and child could walk the length and breadth of England without fear of molestation then...
Chivington might have been quoted as saying "nits make lice," but he is certainly not the first one to make such an observation as it is an observable fact. If you have read the account of wooden Leg, a warrior of the Cheyenne tribe that fought against Custer et al., he dispassionately noted killing an enemy squaw for the reason in question.
I am not going to waste my time and yours debating ethics and philosophy. I will state unequivocally that in the alignment system as presented in OAD&D, an eye for an eye is lawful and just, Lawful Good, as misconduct is to be punished under just laws.
Lawful Neutrality countenances malign laws. Lawful Good does not.
Mercy is to be displayed for the lawbreaker that does so by accident. Benevolence is for the harmless. Pacifism in the fantasy milieu is for those who would be slaves. They have no place in determining general alignment, albeit justice tempered by mercy is a NG manifestation, whilst well-considered benevolence is generally a mark of Good." -Gary Gygax 2005
The discussion is mostly about how a Paladin would see himself and the requirements of law and his faith in the middle ages. Basically Paladins are zealots of the worst kind (or were in the early D&D games).
Wizards could easily establish their good intentions by proposing an irrevocable update to 1.0a that only adds their anti-hate clause, and putting enforcement of that out of their own hands.
But they won't, because that's not what they're really after - they want to shut out video games and control VTTs.
So long as they're using social issues as a smokescreen to protect their business ambitions, they can't be trusted and their reasons for attempting to de-authorize 1.0a are BS (and potentially not going to work).
What's an example of the kind of thing where WotC would intervene with their moral police clause? Maybe I am being naive, but I think third-party publishers usually go for mass appeal (so nothing too controversial). What exactly do they imagine could happen in the future, where they would use their OGL to selectively revoke someone's license?
3pp don't go for mass appeal. They go for niche. And that's why it was so crucial for D&D's growth.
Some sucessful 3pp sell no more than a few hundred or few thousands of copies. But they cover topics that WotC would never do. For some communities, that was extremely important. Like, a book about women and mythology. Or another focused on LGBTQ+ issues.
I'll say it again, D&D became big and inclusive because of the complete OPEN 3pp. A morality clause would strike fear on any creative endeavor, as you definition of offensive could be much different from WotCs. When your entirely livelihood and business is dependent on such a clause, I bet it would stifle all creativity, and most would always play safe, so to speak
Wizards could easily establish their good intentions by proposing an irrevocable update to 1.0a that only adds their anti-hate clause, and putting enforcement of that out of their own hands.
But they won't, because that's not what they're really after - they want to shut out video games and control VTTs.
So long as they're using social issues as a smokescreen to protect their business ambitions, they can't be trusted and their reasons for attempting to de-authorize 1.0a are BS (and potentially not going to work).
The funny thing about them wanting to treat their product as strictly a video game is that video games have life cycles. Some go on for decades but most are good for a couple years before they start withering away as people move to something new. Remember DDO? Yeah, hardly anyone else does, either.
WotC is going to regret the decision to make D&D a video game. Once they've killed of 3pp and other VTTs, all that ill will they generate will make it very hard to win back the customers lost and the people who stayed to play it as a video game won't care because they got bored and they have no real investment in the game beyond it's position in the next great thing competition.
Their anti-hate clause is unacceptable because they are simply not trustworthy, we cannot assume good faith on their part when they've acted so terribly over the whole thing. I would have no issue with them doing their hate clause to a renewed d20 license, it would let people use those ugly badges on their products. But it wouldn't interfere with the rest of the hobby only cripple 6e and that's already a non-starter for me.
From all appearances, the ORC license will not have such a clause so will be a better license.
The amount of trust that some people still have in Wizards is astounding. All they have to say is that they want to get rid of harmful things and you just believe their definition of harmful is the same as yours.
This License is terrible. Is it as terrible as OGL 1.1? No. But that doesn't mean it is good. It is full of loopholes that allow Wizards to change it, it screws over the VTT space because they are confident enough in their own product. It makes it so all disputes between them and others go through their preferred legal channels. it gives them the ability to revoke the license of anyone they don't like. Finally, it is a solution is search of a problem. The OGL 1.0a has served this community for 22 years and was intended to do so indefinitely. Wizards is more successful than it has ever has been but as James Stephanie Sterling has said over and over, "Companies don't want some money, they want all of the money!".
Your forgetting. Its not WotC published book but the 3rd parties book. WotC has no right to regulate what gets into someone elses published works.
Wrong - Wizards has every right to regulate what gets published with their intellectual property, especially their trademark on it.
There are two underlying hypocrisies in the “but other people should have freedom to publish their own content” crowd. First, they only come out of the woodworks when racist content is under attack - when Wizards tries to make a change to their product, suddenly those exact same people are telling Wizards they have no right to publish the content Wizards wants to publish.
The second is that they are trying to use “free speech” in a manner that explicitly is denying Wizards its basic speech rights. The underlying producer of a copyright and trademark has the strongest right to decide what is published with those materials - and saying “I will let you use this stuff for these things, but not these things” is an expression of speech. Of course, those who clamour for “free speech” do not care about “free speech” as an esoteric concept - if they did they would respect Wizards’ free speech decision to decide what kind of content gets published with their brand attached to it. What they really mean is “free speech, so long as that speech comports to my views, and to heck with the fact someone else’s speech might have the stronger claim.”
Your forgetting. Its not WotC published book but the 3rd parties book. WotC has no right to regulate what gets into someone elses published works.
Wrong - Wizards has every right to regulate what gets published with their intellectual property, especially their trademark on it.
There are two underlying hypocrisies in the “but other people should have freedom to publish their own content” crowd. First, they only come out of the woodworks when racist content is under attack - when Wizards tries to make a change to their product, suddenly those exact same people are telling Wizards they have no right to publish the content Wizards wants to publish.
The second is that they are trying to use “free speech” in a manner that explicitly is denying Wizards its basic speech rights. The underlying producer of a copyright and trademark has the strongest right to decide what is published with those materials - and saying “I will let you use this stuff for these things, but not these things” is an expression of speech. Of course, those who clamour for “free speech” do not care about “free speech” as an esoteric concept - if they did they would respect Wizards’ free speech decision to decide what kind of content gets published with their brand attached to it. What they really mean is “free speech, so long as that speech comports to my views, and to heck with the fact someone else’s speech might have the stronger claim.”
As I said elsewhere ...
Imagine if some minted megachurch purchased Hasbro. Imagine the response to their announcing they will get to decide what content is obscene, offensive, or otherwise objectionable. Imagine if this was to include anything outside of what they consider to be "normal."
Would you then be here on these forums with your legalese and post after post about how they'd have every right to do so?
No.
If you really want to talk about "underlying hypocrisies," maybe deal with your own. Try learning to be morally and intellectually consistent. Because anything less than that makes you less trustworthy than lawyers who appear on television.
Except here is the difference between me and those who are sad that racism is being removed from the game - I would be against the underlying changes, and have data to support why those changes are bad and cause trauma for those who experience it. I would not argue free speech - this hypothetical mega church would absolutely have the free speech rights to do what they want.
And that is a pretty big difference - that is respecting free speech as both a legal and esoteric concept, while thinking the underlying speech is abhorrent and being able to back up that position with actual data showing harm. The racists, transphobes, sexists, and others with similar views, on the other hand, don’t actually have any real arguments - they want to stick in a repressive world because they are scared that, if the world moves forward, they’ll be on the wrong side of history. So, without any actual data showing harm, and in the face of the overwhelming data showing their belief systems actively hurt minority players and contribute to things like minority depression, they’ll resort to the hypocrisy of “free speech” to defend what, deep down, they know or should know is indefensible.
Wrong - Wizards has every right to regulate what gets published with their intellectual property, especially their trademark on it.
This is absolutely true. They have every right to do so, and I applaud it.
...but they can't torch an agreement they entered into freely, which they themselves claimed (in their FAQ, which they hid) was always going to be an option for those who wanted to use the OGL, in the case a new version of the OGL was released.
And again, that's not why they're revoking 1.0a, it's just a cover - their real motives are in the other changes they're making to restrict VTTs and videogames. If they drop those, I'll revisit whether I believe they're sincere in their goals to promote social justice.
There was a legal saying I heard once that honestly strikes me as very apt for this whole debacle. Pardon to the forum's lawyers if I get this wrong, but paraphrasing:
If you don't have the facts, argue the law. If you don't have the law, argue the facts. If you don't have either, scream and pound the table.
There's a whole lot of screamy table-pounding going on here, and a whole lot of people defending hateful content any way they can. Yes, Section 6f DOES overreach, but we have a chance to do something about that. What we're NOT gonna get is Wizards giving people express permission to be evil hateful bigots while using D&D to do it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It doesn't matter, actually this 1.2 says practically the same as 1.1 said.
This is what WoTC wants to do and no survey is going to change it.
- They want to be able to control the content published under the OGL. Even plagiarize it.
- They want to control the VTT market focused on D&D. They basically want you to use theirs, and only theirs. And that you pay every month, pay for microtransactions, etc...
- They want any D&D video game to have to go through them.
- They want to prevent another publishing house from passing to the right again under the auspices of the OGL.
Is what they want legitimate? I'm not saying no. What is not legitimate is that they annul 1.0a
But if they don't, they can't guarantee what they want, then they're going to do it anyway.
We are the ones who have to tell them that we are not going to go there. That they can't do it.
I'm going to suggest that people screenshot and save their answers, then when WotC decide to use their "survey" to manipulate the data, we can show them that we still say no.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
Is this draft better than what was leaked? Yes. Is it good? No. The morality clause is far too open to abuse, the waiving of a right to trial by jury is a major red flag, and the kicker is the severability clause. That clause gives the owner the ability to throw the whole thing out if part of it is declared invalid. What exactly is there to stop WOTC or some future owner from adding something in that they know is invalid or unenforceable in order to get this junked? And what guarantee do we have that they won’t try to deauthorize 1.2 like they are with 1.0a?
As for the Creative Commons part, that’s purely a PR move. Game mechanics can’t be copyrighted, meaning there’s nothing stopping anyone from using that material anyways. It’s meant to look like WOTC is giving people something, but the reality is we always had it.
Overall, I’m not happy with this new version. It relies too much on trust in WOTC and Hasbro that I simply don’t have. They need to do a lot of work both in general and on this issue specifically if they’re going to win back my trust.
They don't need to deauthorize 1.2, they can change it whenever they want.
What's an example of the kind of thing where WotC would intervene with their moral police clause? Maybe I am being naive, but I think third-party publishers usually go for mass appeal (so nothing too controversial). What exactly do they imagine could happen in the future, where they would use their OGL to selectively revoke someone's license?
I do not see the problem. This already happened with 4e.
4e was under the GSL, but OGL 1.0a was still around. Two different licenses for different things.
Even more. When OGL 1.0a was created, the D20 license also existed. Two different WoTC licenses, and they coexisted without problem.
Then they could make another license and put SRD5.1 in it, if they want. But what is not legitimate is that they cancel the 1.0a
Why are they actually overriding 1.0a? Because if they don't, they can't develop their strategy for the next few years. And that consists of:
- Control the VTT market. Basically having the monopoly (at least when it comes to D&D).
- Control the D&D video game market.
- Control the content of third parties, and the intellectual property of what is published under the OGL.
I'm not making anything out to be childish outrage. I'm saying justified concern becomes something else over time. Then, I use myself as an example - in which, yes, I point out that my behaviour may be seen as childish and immature, but that's not the point of the parallel.
Anyways.
You're not incorrect that certain technologies existed when the OGL was made. On the other hand, you're not right either. They weren't by any means matured, and they didn't hold any clear market value. They do today - today, it may well be argued that those technologies are the future of this market.
But anyways, all the concerns I've seen (and as I've stated, I'm rather on the fringe of this fight) have been addressed. There's the question of VTT's, but as I pointed out elsewhere, that's propably simply 100% necessary. One could easily publish a game like Baldur's Gate 3, make it so 6 players could play CO-OP, and claim it's a VTT, and thus license free. Even more - you could publish a 'VTT' as an engine, then market at string of 'Adventures' for that engine, basically what would amount to Baldur's Gate 1+2+3+expansions.
Also, since the whole point here is that WoTC invite to debate, maybe outrage isn't the best reaction.
Outrage works for a while, but if you do not - at some point - take a deep breath and start speaking in a normal tone of voice, the counterpart simply stops listening.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I do not see the problem. This already happened with 4e.
4e was under the GSL, but OGL 1.0a was still around. Two different licenses for different things.
Even more. When OGL 1.0a was created, the D20 license also existed. Two different WoTC licenses, and they coexisted without problem.
Then they could make another license and put SRD5.1 in it, if they want. But what is not legitimate is that they cancel the 1.0a
Why are they actually overriding 1.0a? Because if they don't, they can't develop their strategy for the next few years. And that consists of:
- Control the VTT market. Basically having the monopoly (at least when it comes to D&D).
- Control the D&D video game market.
- Control the content of third parties, and the intellectual property of what is published under the OGL.
While this is basically what I'm also arguing, I doubt they really want to monopolize the VTT market. I think they just want to make sure the VTT market becomes a backdoor to license free D&D video games. But otherwise, yes, this is my point exactly, just in clearer language *thumbs up*
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Honestly this is kind of the first thing I'd expect them to try to do longterm. Having a monopoly would allow them to charge for a whole range of services, large companies always choose to monopolize methods of distribution when they consider it profitable. (E.g. Steam and every games company that's tried to emulate steam)
I keep reading about the Gygax Quote. I think it's from this interview in 2005 where he is discussing Lawful Good and the propensity for LG to kill enemies who are no longer fighting. Please note that I am quoting a quote so I can not guarantee it is accurate but I've seen it floating around for ages.
The discussion is mostly about how a Paladin would see himself and the requirements of law and his faith in the middle ages. Basically Paladins are zealots of the worst kind (or were in the early D&D games).
Wizards could easily establish their good intentions by proposing an irrevocable update to 1.0a that only adds their anti-hate clause, and putting enforcement of that out of their own hands.
But they won't, because that's not what they're really after - they want to shut out video games and control VTTs.
So long as they're using social issues as a smokescreen to protect their business ambitions, they can't be trusted and their reasons for attempting to de-authorize 1.0a are BS (and potentially not going to work).
3pp don't go for mass appeal. They go for niche. And that's why it was so crucial for D&D's growth.
Some sucessful 3pp sell no more than a few hundred or few thousands of copies. But they cover topics that WotC would never do. For some communities, that was extremely important. Like, a book about women and mythology. Or another focused on LGBTQ+ issues.
I'll say it again, D&D became big and inclusive because of the complete OPEN 3pp. A morality clause would strike fear on any creative endeavor, as you definition of offensive could be much different from WotCs. When your entirely livelihood and business is dependent on such a clause, I bet it would stifle all creativity, and most would always play safe, so to speak
The funny thing about them wanting to treat their product as strictly a video game is that video games have life cycles. Some go on for decades but most are good for a couple years before they start withering away as people move to something new. Remember DDO? Yeah, hardly anyone else does, either.
WotC is going to regret the decision to make D&D a video game. Once they've killed of 3pp and other VTTs, all that ill will they generate will make it very hard to win back the customers lost and the people who stayed to play it as a video game won't care because they got bored and they have no real investment in the game beyond it's position in the next great thing competition.
Their anti-hate clause is unacceptable because they are simply not trustworthy, we cannot assume good faith on their part when they've acted so terribly over the whole thing. I would have no issue with them doing their hate clause to a renewed d20 license, it would let people use those ugly badges on their products. But it wouldn't interfere with the rest of the hobby only cripple 6e and that's already a non-starter for me.
From all appearances, the ORC license will not have such a clause so will be a better license.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
The amount of trust that some people still have in Wizards is astounding. All they have to say is that they want to get rid of harmful things and you just believe their definition of harmful is the same as yours.
This License is terrible. Is it as terrible as OGL 1.1? No. But that doesn't mean it is good. It is full of loopholes that allow Wizards to change it, it screws over the VTT space because they are confident enough in their own product. It makes it so all disputes between them and others go through their preferred legal channels. it gives them the ability to revoke the license of anyone they don't like. Finally, it is a solution is search of a problem. The OGL 1.0a has served this community for 22 years and was intended to do so indefinitely. Wizards is more successful than it has ever has been but as James Stephanie Sterling has said over and over, "Companies don't want some money, they want all of the money!".
Wrong - Wizards has every right to regulate what gets published with their intellectual property, especially their trademark on it.
There are two underlying hypocrisies in the “but other people should have freedom to publish their own content” crowd. First, they only come out of the woodworks when racist content is under attack - when Wizards tries to make a change to their product, suddenly those exact same people are telling Wizards they have no right to publish the content Wizards wants to publish.
The second is that they are trying to use “free speech” in a manner that explicitly is denying Wizards its basic speech rights. The underlying producer of a copyright and trademark has the strongest right to decide what is published with those materials - and saying “I will let you use this stuff for these things, but not these things” is an expression of speech. Of course, those who clamour for “free speech” do not care about “free speech” as an esoteric concept - if they did they would respect Wizards’ free speech decision to decide what kind of content gets published with their brand attached to it. What they really mean is “free speech, so long as that speech comports to my views, and to heck with the fact someone else’s speech might have the stronger claim.”
Except here is the difference between me and those who are sad that racism is being removed from the game - I would be against the underlying changes, and have data to support why those changes are bad and cause trauma for those who experience it. I would not argue free speech - this hypothetical mega church would absolutely have the free speech rights to do what they want.
And that is a pretty big difference - that is respecting free speech as both a legal and esoteric concept, while thinking the underlying speech is abhorrent and being able to back up that position with actual data showing harm. The racists, transphobes, sexists, and others with similar views, on the other hand, don’t actually have any real arguments - they want to stick in a repressive world because they are scared that, if the world moves forward, they’ll be on the wrong side of history. So, without any actual data showing harm, and in the face of the overwhelming data showing their belief systems actively hurt minority players and contribute to things like minority depression, they’ll resort to the hypocrisy of “free speech” to defend what, deep down, they know or should know is indefensible.
This is absolutely true. They have every right to do so, and I applaud it.
...but they can't torch an agreement they entered into freely, which they themselves claimed (in their FAQ, which they hid) was always going to be an option for those who wanted to use the OGL, in the case a new version of the OGL was released.
And again, that's not why they're revoking 1.0a, it's just a cover - their real motives are in the other changes they're making to restrict VTTs and videogames. If they drop those, I'll revisit whether I believe they're sincere in their goals to promote social justice.
There was a legal saying I heard once that honestly strikes me as very apt for this whole debacle. Pardon to the forum's lawyers if I get this wrong, but paraphrasing:
If you don't have the facts, argue the law. If you don't have the law, argue the facts. If you don't have either, scream and pound the table.
There's a whole lot of screamy table-pounding going on here, and a whole lot of people defending hateful content any way they can. Yes, Section 6f DOES overreach, but we have a chance to do something about that. What we're NOT gonna get is Wizards giving people express permission to be evil hateful bigots while using D&D to do it.
Please do not contact or message me.