No hate -> no conflict -> no story-> no adventure -> no game -> no fun
I mean, I run a gritter version of RPGs where players have to deal with real evils, such as slavery and hatred. Without evils int he game we might as well be playing Care Bears' Reunion...
No I think the game should be set up to direct hate at real people? Hell no, but the reality of the situation is, this isn't real life it is a game that we sit around a table and play with friends. Where the players are heroes who are out to correct the world's wrongs, but if there are no world's wrongs to correct, what is the hero to do?
Are there places where I can see this as a good thing (yah, see the aforementioned Hadoze(sp)) where monsters may be created to be specifically referential to IRL scenarios. Great, regulate that, but to make such a blanket statement, without any recourse, is not conducive to having a license that people would be willing to create under. Which I can't deny may be their goal... Not a smart one, imo, but they probably know things I don't...
Let us take this as an example, I want to create a story that plays similar to a REAL LIFE story of human history, so I create a villain who goes around killing 'ladies of the night' creating a 'Jack the Ripper' type of story hook. Oh wait, I can't because that would be hateful (involves murders by the villain that are devised with a prejudice in mind)... Falls afoul of the hateful (and possibly illegal clause). Ok, so now we have goblins attacking a village and the heroes are hired to protect the village... nope, can't do that, that insinuates that all goblins are evil (thus racist)... in the end, the ability to create compelling villains becomes next to impossible (or exceedingly predictable) if you can't have 'evil' tropes in the game.
Add to that, how do you define harmful? Harmful to WotC's bottom line? To their reputation (ie, if you make a better adventure than us, that is harmful to us)?
And to repeat, this is all without any recourse to fight it...
Add one last piece of fuel to the fire... We currently live in a world with the words Field and Fieldwork is being considered racist... So you write an into for the heroes... You walk into the village and everything is relatively quiet, the farmers are out in the fields. And in some states, that is racist... license gone (if they stick to the RAW).
You can argue there should be a way to appeal, but even that puts liability out there as they will be seen to approve it.
I feel this is a "You Problem" ("You" as in Hasbro not "You" as in MikeyThe Keat). If Hasbro wants to make 3pp feel safe under this arrangement there has to be some give. If there isn't many (but not all) 3PPs will not want to sign on (and may even have this pointed out by lawyers they seek out for advice). Again, if Hasbro doesn't care that's on them, but as someone who wants more 3PP content and wants the community that's been built up with the concept of open gaming to continue I don't really like the fact there's no appeals process because it's pointing a sword to your throat and swearing up and down they'll never drive the sword through your throat and don't worry because if they kill you then people will be really mad at them. I know that seems a bit dramatic but it's best analogy I can think of atm!
edit: fixing grammar
You are absolutely correct. I don’t like the no appeal thing either and I want the 3PP content also. But with everything else, it’s a question as to what people can live with. I’m betting some 3PP will go along with it. And WOTC is clearly betting on that also.
Right some. From my view, and this could be wrong it's just a guess, for Hasbro keeping this clause as is (if they do) is less about hateful content or trying to limit lawsuits than having 3PPs who are willing to trust Hasbro and play ball. They may not want 3PPs that don't trust Hasbro won't drive that sword through their throat if they get too big or just because Hasbro wants to start acting like Disney or Nintendo. I've said almost from the start this is less about money than it is about control. They want 3PPs that are on their wavelength and who have trust in them not 3PPs who believe lawyers when they say this clause is too broad and gives Hasbro too much power.
I've been in this space a long time and one thing that solidified my love of 3e was the Scarred Lands. Looking back on those book (Creature Collection and Relics and Rituals) I could see that there is a non zero chance that something dark like that would be strangled by Hasbro in the cradle under 1.2 if they wanted to. I can't believe I'm the only one who got very into the hobby (as an adult) thanks to material Hasbro wasn't interested or didn't think of publishing. The more 3PPs are chased away the less chance D&D going forward will be what I once liked.
Hopefuly that makes some sense.
Absolutely makes sense. And from their side for sure. Avoids a lot of headaches if they know who’s willing to go along with them. To me it’s a multifaceted decision and they have multiple reasons for their approach. All of which are to their benefit of course.
Regardless, they cannot be trusted. The got caught with the hand in the cookie jar, and they tried to lie about it. It is good they have been forced to backpedal but we can't give any leniency now. If we give them an inch they will take a mile.
And yet here you are pushing Paizo's attempt to rehabilitate their image after they had serious internal mistreatment of employees as early as 2021... Are you even aware of that issue? Why would I trust them to be a champion of anything when they have proven they don't even treat their employees very well.
You're talking about the company that took the fairly extraordinary step of voluntarily recognizing their employee's Union, right? That company?
Because they were loosing money hand over fist, and still haven't proven they won't just do it again. Sound like an argument you are currently making?
The whole.. once a company shows us who they are, that is who they are argument many are making about WotC. Paizo is not a white knight, you all just easily forgive Racism and sexism, because they said nice stuff to you and it's been a year and a half.
Theyre more trustworthy because they take obvious, transparent actions to address things when confronted with them.
Most people aren't saying that WotC can Never ever regain the communities trust - but they need to take clear, transparent action with assurances and safeguards to make a start.
Given that there exists a good chance they can't even accomplish the deauthorization of 1.0a anyway, walking away from that point would be an excellent concession to establish start rebuilding trust. If they can't be relied upon to keep promises they made decades ago and provided assurances on until just recently, rebuilding trust really is going to be impossible.
So for you, there is no chance WotC can ever be trusted, even though they are offereing a lot right now, and haven't made 1.2 final? There is NOTHING WotC can do, in your opinion, that would make them trustworthy short of bowing down to your whims. SO essentially, you are irrelevant to improving 1.2.
If they can't take the simple step of honoring their past promises, why would anyone believe their future promises?
We have factual information that tells us 1.0a was intended to be available forever, from its authors. That obligation is Hasbro/WotC's - they don't have the luxury of trying to pretend like it didn't happen. They kept the faq to that effect up for nearly two decades.
Why would anyone trust someone not to lie when their most recent relevant action is to lie?
No hate -> no conflict -> no story-> no adventure -> no game -> no fun
I mean, I run a gritter version of RPGs where players have to deal with real evils, such as slavery and hatred. Without evils int he game we might as well be playing Care Bears' Reunion...
No I think the game should be set up to direct hate at real people? Hell no, but the reality of the situation is, this isn't real life it is a game that we sit around a table and play with friends. Where the players are heroes who are out to correct the world's wrongs, but if there are no world's wrongs to correct, what is the hero to do?
Are there places where I can see this as a good thing (yah, see the aforementioned Hadoze(sp)) where monsters may be created to be specifically referential to IRL scenarios. Great, regulate that, but to make such a blanket statement, without any recourse, is not conducive to having a license that people would be willing to create under. Which I can't deny may be their goal... Not a smart one, imo, but they probably know things I don't...
Let us take this as an example, I want to create a story that plays similar to a REAL LIFE story of human history, so I create a villain who goes around killing 'ladies of the night' creating a 'Jack the Ripper' type of story hook. Oh wait, I can't because that would be hateful (involves murders by the villain that are devised with a prejudice in mind)... Falls afoul of the hateful (and possibly illegal clause). Ok, so now we have goblins attacking a village and the heroes are hired to protect the village... nope, can't do that, that insinuates that all goblins are evil (thus racist)... in the end, the ability to create compelling villains becomes next to impossible (or exceedingly predictable) if you can't have 'evil' tropes in the game.
Add to that, how do you define harmful? Harmful to WotC's bottom line? To their reputation (ie, if you make a better adventure than us, that is harmful to us)?
And to repeat, this is all without any recourse to fight it...
Add one last piece of fuel to the fire... We currently live in a world with the words Field and Fieldwork is being considered racist... So you write an into for the heroes... You walk into the village and everything is relatively quiet, the farmers are out in the fields. And in some states, that is racist... license gone (if they stick to the RAW).
Nothing can stop you from running your gritty games as you describe. That doesn't fall under the OGL or any of the agreements involved here. That is your expression. What they don't want is that baked into the publishings themselves. If your table wants all goblins to be evil and all Orcs to be barbarous marauders then you are free to do so.
If your argument is that you want those elements published then yes there could be concern, but as players we control the games at our tables and can modify the stories however we want. I'd also point to the fact that even to this day WotC official publishing include real evils. What they are concerned about are the monolithic all of this race is evil.
I glanced through this OGL 1.2 and even without reading everything... I already see vague contract language in place to be sure WotC and Hasbro maintain a strangle-hold over all content decisions of the creators.
Paragraph 6f is an absolute joke! You get to decide what's "harmful" and what's not? So that could be anything your delicate sensibilities deem bad, AND without discussion! ANYTHING. AND we have to swallow your decision with no debate. And given the "safe space" culture WotC has been fostering... why would anyone even bother? The fact you're still debating the name change to "Race" tells me everything I need to know. 6f will be a problem.
And Misc. paragraph 9 a-h!? Are you kidding? This essentially give WotC and Hasbro all the protection they need and denies the creator everything! We have to agree to waiver of jury trial in the event of disputes? LOL... you really think people are going to swallow this? I suppose the ones who don't care to read it will.
This here is just reinforcing my decision to stop spending money with WotC. BUT, I can still sit here and watch the forums without paying a cent.... that I can do! It's turning into a dumpster fire. And I do love watching things burn.
No hate -> no conflict -> no story-> no adventure -> no game -> no fun
I mean, I run a gritter version of RPGs where players have to deal with real evils, such as slavery and hatred. Without evils int he game we might as well be playing Care Bears' Reunion...
No I think the game should be set up to direct hate at real people? Hell no, but the reality of the situation is, this isn't real life it is a game that we sit around a table and play with friends. Where the players are heroes who are out to correct the world's wrongs, but if there are no world's wrongs to correct, what is the hero to do?
Are there places where I can see this as a good thing (yah, see the aforementioned Hadoze(sp)) where monsters may be created to be specifically referential to IRL scenarios. Great, regulate that, but to make such a blanket statement, without any recourse, is not conducive to having a license that people would be willing to create under. Which I can't deny may be their goal... Not a smart one, imo, but they probably know things I don't...
Let us take this as an example, I want to create a story that plays similar to a REAL LIFE story of human history, so I create a villain who goes around killing 'ladies of the night' creating a 'Jack the Ripper' type of story hook. Oh wait, I can't because that would be hateful (involves murders by the villain that are devised with a prejudice in mind)... Falls afoul of the hateful (and possibly illegal clause). Ok, so now we have goblins attacking a village and the heroes are hired to protect the village... nope, can't do that, that insinuates that all goblins are evil (thus racist)... in the end, the ability to create compelling villains becomes next to impossible (or exceedingly predictable) if you can't have 'evil' tropes in the game.
Add to that, how do you define harmful? Harmful to WotC's bottom line? To their reputation (ie, if you make a better adventure than us, that is harmful to us)?
And to repeat, this is all without any recourse to fight it...
Add one last piece of fuel to the fire... We currently live in a world with the words Field and Fieldwork is being considered racist... So you write an into for the heroes... You walk into the village and everything is relatively quiet, the farmers are out in the fields. And in some states, that is racist... license gone (if they stick to the RAW).
Nothing can stop you from running your gritty games as you describe. That doesn't fall under the OGL or any of the agreements involved here. That is your expression. What they don't want is that baked into the publishings themselves. If your table wants all goblins to be evil and all Orcs to be barbarous marauders then you are free to do so.
If your argument is that you want those elements published then yes there could be concern, but as players we control the games at our tables and can modify the stories however we want. I'd also point to the fact that even to this day WotC official publishing include real evils. What they are concerned about are the monolithic all of this race is evil.
That may be their concern, but that is not what they wrote... And maybe I decide to publish an adventure arc out of something I ran at my table (as I know I'm not the only one who likes that kind of game)... It is just too open and too interpretative as it is written... So, while I understand they need to protect themselves (especially in a world where the word Field is considered racist), I don't agree with the way they are doing it.
No hate -> no conflict -> no story-> no adventure -> no game -> no fun
The point you are missing: There is a difference between creating a world with sensitive topics in the world, and actively promulgating hate speech. Wizards themselves explores themes of intolerance - the Duergar in Out of the Abyss, for example, are exclusionary and racist. But they are created in such a way that the themes are explored, without there being an element of hate or the promulgation of real world stereotypes.
Compare to the Hadozee where, likely unintentionally, they released language that paralleled almost word for word arguments made by slave holders prior and during the civil war (the rather vile argument that taking the uncivilised monkeys and turned them into something intelligent which they would never have become if not kidnapped and made into slaves) and even made a couple statements that looked suspiciously similar to real world stereotypes (saying that the slave race is much hardier than other races, a stereotype which has measurable impacts in the medical field as doctors still hold the belief that those with African origins have higher pain tolerances).
The former is exploring themes in a way that respects the themes and explores the complexities of them; the latter is (even if accidentally) actively promoting hate speech as official content.
So, want to make a Jack the Ripper thing where he kills ladies of the night? Go for it - just don’t make the theme of it “and Jack is the abject hero because prostitutes deserve death.” That would be offensive. Instead, you could use it to explore themes about how the marginalised are forced to survive and the very things society forced them to do causes them to be shunned by society. That’s not offensive - that’s exploratory and conversational.
I have seen a lot of edgelord Hasbro shill types in the comments who are hardcore invested in getting people to just give up and sign on to the new OGL, no matter what it is, because they can't seem to think about anyone else's position but their own for even a fraction of a second.
I've also seen people who are invested in being as jaded and cynical as possible insisting there's no point in resisting, y'know the classic Borg stuff, because they gave up in their souls so the rest of us should too - just give in to your corporate overlords, stop whining, it's getting annoying!
However, over 1500 companies signed on with Paizo's new plan, publicly. That's a huge amount of companies, even if a lot of them are small, you have to think that's 1500 businesses that used to sell D&D stuff that are just... not going to anymore. They may sell TTRPG stuff, but they're not going to do anything to go out of their way to promote, specifically, dungeons and dragons anymore. That's gonna leave a dent in the public image very quickly here, especially once Convention season rolls around. Wizards has no idea how badly they just cut off their nose to spite their face with this one.
Regardless, they cannot be trusted. The got caught with the hand in the cookie jar, and they tried to lie about it. It is good they have been forced to backpedal but we can't give any leniency now. If we give them an inch they will take a mile.
And yet here you are pushing Paizo's attempt to rehabilitate their image after they had serious internal mistreatment of employees as early as 2021... Are you even aware of that issue? Why would I trust them to be a champion of anything when they have proven they don't even treat their employees very well.
You're talking about the company that took the fairly extraordinary step of voluntarily recognizing their employee's Union, right? That company?
Because they were loosing money hand over fist, and still haven't proven they won't just do it again. Sound like an argument you are currently making?
The whole.. once a company shows us who they are, that is who they are argument many are making about WotC. Paizo is not a white knight, you all just easily forgive Racism and sexism, because they said nice stuff to you and it's been a year and a half.
Theyre more trustworthy because they take obvious, transparent actions to address things when confronted with them.
Most people aren't saying that WotC can Never ever regain the communities trust - but they need to take clear, transparent action with assurances and safeguards to make a start.
Given that there exists a good chance they can't even accomplish the deauthorization of 1.0a anyway, walking away from that point would be an excellent concession to establish start rebuilding trust. If they can't be relied upon to keep promises they made decades ago and provided assurances on until just recently, rebuilding trust really is going to be impossible.
So for you, there is no chance WotC can ever be trusted, even though they are offereing a lot right now, and haven't made 1.2 final? There is NOTHING WotC can do, in your opinion, that would make them trustworthy short of bowing down to your whims. SO essentially, you are irrelevant to improving 1.2.
If they can't take the simple step of honoring their past promises, why would anyone believe their future promises?
We have factual information that tells us 1.0a was intended to be available forever, from its authors. That obligation is Hasbro/WotC's - they don't have the luxury of trying to pretend like it didn't happen. They kept the faq to that effect up for nearly two decades.
Why would anyone trust someone not to lie when their most recent relevant action is to lie?
Intent counts for something, but it’s not everything, particularly in contract law. And, again, why are you so wedded to 1.0a outside of what is essentially an appeal to tradition fallacy? Most likely WotC has the right to decide they are no longer extending an offer, even if that is not necessarily what the person who originally made the offer would have done. Control of that offer belongs to the company. They are putting another offer on the table, and fearmongering “what if they decide to burn their own community down” scenarios aside, it largely reintroduces the previous protections while giving WotC some protection from independent creators tarnishing their image. To be clear, I’m not saying WotC are paragons of virtue, but if you really don’t think they can be trusted at all, then it doesn’t matter what offer they make, and it’s probably just time for you to walk away from the franchise if you hate them that much.
No hate -> no conflict -> no story-> no adventure -> no game -> no fun
I mean, I run a gritter version of RPGs where players have to deal with real evils, such as slavery and hatred. Without evils int he game we might as well be playing Care Bears' Reunion...
No I think the game should be set up to direct hate at real people? Hell no, but the reality of the situation is, this isn't real life it is a game that we sit around a table and play with friends. Where the players are heroes who are out to correct the world's wrongs, but if there are no world's wrongs to correct, what is the hero to do?
Are there places where I can see this as a good thing (yah, see the aforementioned Hadoze(sp)) where monsters may be created to be specifically referential to IRL scenarios. Great, regulate that, but to make such a blanket statement, without any recourse, is not conducive to having a license that people would be willing to create under. Which I can't deny may be their goal... Not a smart one, imo, but they probably know things I don't...
Let us take this as an example, I want to create a story that plays similar to a REAL LIFE story of human history, so I create a villain who goes around killing 'ladies of the night' creating a 'Jack the Ripper' type of story hook. Oh wait, I can't because that would be hateful (involves murders by the villain that are devised with a prejudice in mind)... Falls afoul of the hateful (and possibly illegal clause). Ok, so now we have goblins attacking a village and the heroes are hired to protect the village... nope, can't do that, that insinuates that all goblins are evil (thus racist)... in the end, the ability to create compelling villains becomes next to impossible (or exceedingly predictable) if you can't have 'evil' tropes in the game.
Add to that, how do you define harmful? Harmful to WotC's bottom line? To their reputation (ie, if you make a better adventure than us, that is harmful to us)?
And to repeat, this is all without any recourse to fight it...
Add one last piece of fuel to the fire... We currently live in a world with the words Field and Fieldwork is being considered racist... So you write an into for the heroes... You walk into the village and everything is relatively quiet, the farmers are out in the fields. And in some states, that is racist... license gone (if they stick to the RAW).
Nothing can stop you from running your gritty games as you describe. That doesn't fall under the OGL or any of the agreements involved here. That is your expression. What they don't want is that baked into the publishings themselves. If your table wants all goblins to be evil and all Orcs to be barbarous marauders then you are free to do so.
If your argument is that you want those elements published then yes there could be concern, but as players we control the games at our tables and can modify the stories however we want. I'd also point to the fact that even to this day WotC official publishing include real evils. What they are concerned about are the monolithic all of this race is evil.
That may be their concern, but that is not what they wrote... And maybe I decide to publish an adventure arc out of something I ran at my table (as I know I'm not the only one who likes that kind of game)... It is just too open and too interpretative as it is written... So, while I understand they need to protect themselves (especially in a world where the word Field is considered racist), I don't agree with the way they are doing it.
I agree the language needs to be reworked and clarified in a lot of areas, but it isn't the doom and gloom so many people are promoting as "THEY WILL USE THIS TO SHUT EVERYONE DOWN!" Hasbro is a publicly traded company. It is not only motivated by profit, but is ethically and legally obligated to be motivated by profit as that's their shareholders interest. The safety valve of WotC going nuclear is the same saftey valve that brought us to OGL 1.2. If everyone walks away from the IP there is no profit.
I'm not aware of anyone legitimately claiming the word field is racist. I live in a rural state and I think I'd have heard about it if that were a legitimate concern. Are there people out there saying as such, I have no doubt, but there are also people saying obviously racist things aren't racist. We shouldn't be working this with those people in mind. They have always existed and we've managed to deal with it thus far.
No hate -> no conflict -> no story-> no adventure -> no game -> no fun
I mean, I run a gritter version of RPGs where players have to deal with real evils, such as slavery and hatred. Without evils int he game we might as well be playing Care Bears' Reunion...
No I think the game should be set up to direct hate at real people? Hell no, but the reality of the situation is, this isn't real life it is a game that we sit around a table and play with friends. Where the players are heroes who are out to correct the world's wrongs, but if there are no world's wrongs to correct, what is the hero to do?
Are there places where I can see this as a good thing (yah, see the aforementioned Hadoze(sp)) where monsters may be created to be specifically referential to IRL scenarios. Great, regulate that, but to make such a blanket statement, without any recourse, is not conducive to having a license that people would be willing to create under. Which I can't deny may be their goal... Not a smart one, imo, but they probably know things I don't...
Let us take this as an example, I want to create a story that plays similar to a REAL LIFE story of human history, so I create a villain who goes around killing 'ladies of the night' creating a 'Jack the Ripper' type of story hook. Oh wait, I can't because that would be hateful (involves murders by the villain that are devised with a prejudice in mind)... Falls afoul of the hateful (and possibly illegal clause). Ok, so now we have goblins attacking a village and the heroes are hired to protect the village... nope, can't do that, that insinuates that all goblins are evil (thus racist)... in the end, the ability to create compelling villains becomes next to impossible (or exceedingly predictable) if you can't have 'evil' tropes in the game.
Add to that, how do you define harmful? Harmful to WotC's bottom line? To their reputation (ie, if you make a better adventure than us, that is harmful to us)?
And to repeat, this is all without any recourse to fight it...
Add one last piece of fuel to the fire... We currently live in a world with the words Field and Fieldwork is being considered racist... So you write an into for the heroes... You walk into the village and everything is relatively quiet, the farmers are out in the fields. And in some states, that is racist... license gone (if they stick to the RAW).
WotC is not saying that you can't make a published game with racism or sexism as concepts, etc. What they are saying is you can't make a published game with racist or sexist elements. One is part of many story narratives and is a source for conflict in a story, one is perpetuating real-world harm/legacies of harm. Writer's who can't make that distinction aren't as good of writers as they think. they could better define this, but by doing so they invite people crossing lines because they weren't specifically defined.
Also, can you point to an example of "field" or "fieldwork" being racist IRL? because that is a new one for me. But using that as an example, lets look at three elements of a story shall we?
1) if you have a story setting where a village enslaves a certain group (lets say halflings) to perform manual fieldwork because the village believes their race is "inferior" due to their short stature, that is probably fine (unless you are siding with the villagers, but then you might have problems)
2) if you have a story setting where a village enslaves a certain group (lets say halflings) to pick cotton in a field because the village believes their race is "inferior" due to their short stature, that is a little on the nose, but probably fine, though more likely to garner action than #1 (again, definitely don't side with the villagers)
3) if you have a story where a village enslaves a certain group (lets say halflings) for either of the above for the same reasons...and uses a real-world pejorative to describe them, and makes jokes about how "these (perjorative)s are only good for picking cotton" That is probably going to be flagged as hateful and shut down.
Do you see where the line crosses from a story that is about racism to a story that contains racist elements? Given WotC's focus on elements of their own IP, this is likely the line drawn.
If they can't take the simple step of honoring their past promises, why would anyone believe their future promises?
We have factual information that tells us 1.0a was intended to be available forever, from its authors. That obligation is Hasbro/WotC's - they don't have the luxury of trying to pretend like it didn't happen. They kept the faq to that effect up for nearly two decades.
Why would anyone trust someone not to lie when their most recent relevant action is to lie?
Krispy.
You are asking them to give up on changing their licensing agreements altogether.
Leaving 10.a authorized means there's no point in the existence of 1.2. Evil hateful bigots can doidge 1.2's provisions against evil hateful bigotry by simply using 1.0a instead. NFT grifters looking to scam people out of thousands or millions of dollars can dodge 1.2's provisions against NFT grifting by simply using 1.0a instead. "VTT" services unfairly dodging the tighter licensing restrictions on D&D video games can avoid the provisions restricting VTTs by using 1.0a instead.
You claim to not be against the things 1.2 is trying to do, yet you're inciting people to sabotage the thing by mandating that Wizards be forced to allow people to use the Old Shitty License instead. You keep saying "it's just keeping their promise", without ever acknowledging that the holes in 1.0a are a source of real concern and worry for people. Without ever acknowledging that creating a 1.2 without sunsetting 1.0a is utterly pointless and does not serve to protect anyone from anything.
Can you please - please - acknowledge that there are good reasons why 1.0a might have to go, even if the way Wizards tried to do it before getting their hand caught in the jar was reprehensible?
Regardless, they cannot be trusted. The got caught with the hand in the cookie jar, and they tried to lie about it. It is good they have been forced to backpedal but we can't give any leniency now. If we give them an inch they will take a mile.
And yet here you are pushing Paizo's attempt to rehabilitate their image after they had serious internal mistreatment of employees as early as 2021... Are you even aware of that issue? Why would I trust them to be a champion of anything when they have proven they don't even treat their employees very well.
You're talking about the company that took the fairly extraordinary step of voluntarily recognizing their employee's Union, right? That company?
Because they were loosing money hand over fist, and still haven't proven they won't just do it again. Sound like an argument you are currently making?
The whole.. once a company shows us who they are, that is who they are argument many are making about WotC. Paizo is not a white knight, you all just easily forgive Racism and sexism, because they said nice stuff to you and it's been a year and a half.
Theyre more trustworthy because they take obvious, transparent actions to address things when confronted with them.
Most people aren't saying that WotC can Never ever regain the communities trust - but they need to take clear, transparent action with assurances and safeguards to make a start.
Given that there exists a good chance they can't even accomplish the deauthorization of 1.0a anyway, walking away from that point would be an excellent concession to establish start rebuilding trust. If they can't be relied upon to keep promises they made decades ago and provided assurances on until just recently, rebuilding trust really is going to be impossible.
So for you, there is no chance WotC can ever be trusted, even though they are offereing a lot right now, and haven't made 1.2 final? There is NOTHING WotC can do, in your opinion, that would make them trustworthy short of bowing down to your whims. SO essentially, you are irrelevant to improving 1.2.
If they can't take the simple step of honoring their past promises, why would anyone believe their future promises?
We have factual information that tells us 1.0a was intended to be available forever, from its authors. That obligation is Hasbro/WotC's - they don't have the luxury of trying to pretend like it didn't happen. They kept the faq to that effect up for nearly two decades.
Why would anyone trust someone not to lie when their most recent relevant action is to lie?
Intent counts for something, but it’s not everything, particularly in contract law. And, again, why are you so wedded to 1.0a outside of what is essentially an appeal to tradition fallacy? Most likely WotC has the right to decide they are no longer extending an offer, even if that is not necessarily what the person who originally made the offer would have done. Control of that offer belongs to the company. They are putting another offer on the table, and fearmongering “what if they decide to burn their own community down” scenarios aside, it largely reintroduces the previous protections while giving WotC some protection from independent creators tarnishing their image. To be clear, I’m not saying WotC are paragons of virtue, but if you really don’t think they can be trusted at all, then it doesn’t matter what offer they make, and it’s probably just time for you to walk away from the franchise if you hate them that much.
They could offer the new version alongside 1.0a, and let creators pick.
Which is how it was supposed to work. If they want to update the OGL, it has to be voluntary on the part of the Community to accept the update.
There's really no way to reconcile them telling people that if they didn't like a new version they could ignore it (for 20 years), and now saying "actually, you have to take whatever shit deal we offer."
No hate -> no conflict -> no story-> no adventure -> no game -> no fun
The point you are missing: There is a difference between creating a world with sensitive topics in the world, and actively promulgating hate speech. Wizards themselves explores themes of intolerance - the Duergar in Out of the Abyss, for example, are exclusionary and racist. But they are created in such a way that the themes are explored, without there being an element of hate or the promulgation of real world stereotypes.
Compare to the Hadozee where, likely unintentionally, they released language that paralleled almost word for word arguments made by slave holders prior and during the civil war (the rather vile argument that taking the uncivilised monkeys and turned them into something intelligent which they would never have become if not kidnapped and made into slaves) and even made a couple statements that looked suspiciously similar to real world stereotypes (saying that the slave race is much hardier than other races, a stereotype which has measurable impacts in the medical field as doctors still hold the belief that those with African origins have higher pain tolerances).
The former is exploring themes in a way that respects the themes and explores the complexities of them; the latter is (even if accidentally) actively promoting hate speech as official content.
So, want to make a Jack the Ripper thing where he kills ladies of the night? Go for it - just don’t make the theme of it “and Jack is the abject hero because prostitutes deserve death.” That would be offensive. Instead, you could use it to explore themes about how the marginalised are forced to survive and the very things society forced them to do causes them to be shunned by society. That’s not offensive - that’s exploratory and conversational.
Then they need to write the 6f like that... as it is written right now, no, you wouldn't be able to because it is hateful and discriminatory (because that is the motivations of the main villain) and could be enough to get your license revoked without any recourse (especially if they didn't like you for some reason). That is why I say that it is too open to interpretation, it is so ambigious that it is easy to read it in a dozen different ways and I can guarentee you that the lawyers will use the one that is most beneficial to them in any given case.
Can you please - please - acknowledge that there are good reasons why 1.0a might have to go, even if the way Wizards tried to do it before getting their hand caught in the jar was reprehensible?
There may be good reasons for them to want it to go - I'm not fundamentally against an anti-hate clause.
But that's not the question at hand. They have an obligation to leave it up as an option - they need to look into other pathways to identifying hateful content and crushing it.
6f is problematic and needs CAREFUL modification. Which will come as there is no end date to modifications until it is done and the community is satisfied. But saying 1.2 is the same as 1.1 is just not true.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
No hate -> no conflict -> no story-> no adventure -> no game -> no fun
I mean, I run a gritter version of RPGs where players have to deal with real evils, such as slavery and hatred. Without evils int he game we might as well be playing Care Bears' Reunion...
No I think the game should be set up to direct hate at real people? Hell no, but the reality of the situation is, this isn't real life it is a game that we sit around a table and play with friends. Where the players are heroes who are out to correct the world's wrongs, but if there are no world's wrongs to correct, what is the hero to do?
Are there places where I can see this as a good thing (yah, see the aforementioned Hadoze(sp)) where monsters may be created to be specifically referential to IRL scenarios. Great, regulate that, but to make such a blanket statement, without any recourse, is not conducive to having a license that people would be willing to create under. Which I can't deny may be their goal... Not a smart one, imo, but they probably know things I don't...
Let us take this as an example, I want to create a story that plays similar to a REAL LIFE story of human history, so I create a villain who goes around killing 'ladies of the night' creating a 'Jack the Ripper' type of story hook. Oh wait, I can't because that would be hateful (involves murders by the villain that are devised with a prejudice in mind)... Falls afoul of the hateful (and possibly illegal clause). Ok, so now we have goblins attacking a village and the heroes are hired to protect the village... nope, can't do that, that insinuates that all goblins are evil (thus racist)... in the end, the ability to create compelling villains becomes next to impossible (or exceedingly predictable) if you can't have 'evil' tropes in the game.
Add to that, how do you define harmful? Harmful to WotC's bottom line? To their reputation (ie, if you make a better adventure than us, that is harmful to us)?
And to repeat, this is all without any recourse to fight it...
Add one last piece of fuel to the fire... We currently live in a world with the words Field and Fieldwork is being considered racist... So you write an into for the heroes... You walk into the village and everything is relatively quiet, the farmers are out in the fields. And in some states, that is racist... license gone (if they stick to the RAW).
Nothing can stop you from running your gritty games as you describe. That doesn't fall under the OGL or any of the agreements involved here. That is your expression. What they don't want is that baked into the publishings themselves. If your table wants all goblins to be evil and all Orcs to be barbarous marauders then you are free to do so.
If your argument is that you want those elements published then yes there could be concern, but as players we control the games at our tables and can modify the stories however we want. I'd also point to the fact that even to this day WotC official publishing include real evils. What they are concerned about are the monolithic all of this race is evil.
That may be their concern, but that is not what they wrote... And maybe I decide to publish an adventure arc out of something I ran at my table (as I know I'm not the only one who likes that kind of game)... It is just too open and too interpretative as it is written... So, while I understand they need to protect themselves (especially in a world where the word Field is considered racist), I don't agree with the way they are doing it.
I agree the language needs to be reworked and clarified in a lot of areas, but it isn't the doom and gloom so many people are promoting as "THEY WILL USE THIS TO SHUT EVERYONE DOWN!" Hasbro is a publicly traded company. It is not only motivated by profit, but is ethically and legally obligated to be motivated by profit as that's their shareholders interest. The safety valve of WotC going nuclear is the same saftey valve that brought us to OGL 1.2. If everyone walks away from the IP there is no profit.
I'm not aware of anyone legitimately claiming the word field is racist. I live in a rural state and I think I'd have heard about it if that were a legitimate concern. Are there people out there saying as such, I have no doubt, but there are also people saying obviously racist things aren't racist. We shouldn't be working this with those people in mind. They have always existed and we've managed to deal with it thus far.
No hate -> no conflict -> no story-> no adventure -> no game -> no fun
The point you are missing: There is a difference between creating a world with sensitive topics in the world, and actively promulgating hate speech. Wizards themselves explores themes of intolerance - the Duergar in Out of the Abyss, for example, are exclusionary and racist. But they are created in such a way that the themes are explored, without there being an element of hate or the promulgation of real world stereotypes.
Compare to the Hadozee where, likely unintentionally, they released language that paralleled almost word for word arguments made by slave holders prior and during the civil war (the rather vile argument that taking the uncivilised monkeys and turned them into something intelligent which they would never have become if not kidnapped and made into slaves) and even made a couple statements that looked suspiciously similar to real world stereotypes (saying that the slave race is much hardier than other races, a stereotype which has measurable impacts in the medical field as doctors still hold the belief that those with African origins have higher pain tolerances).
The former is exploring themes in a way that respects the themes and explores the complexities of them; the latter is (even if accidentally) actively promoting hate speech as official content.
So, want to make a Jack the Ripper thing where he kills ladies of the night? Go for it - just don’t make the theme of it “and Jack is the abject hero because prostitutes deserve death.” That would be offensive. Instead, you could use it to explore themes about how the marginalised are forced to survive and the very things society forced them to do causes them to be shunned by society. That’s not offensive - that’s exploratory and conversational.
Then they need to write the 6f like that... as it is written right now, no, you wouldn't be able to because it is hateful and discriminatory (because that is the motivations of the main villain) and could be enough to get your license revoked without any recourse (especially if they didn't like you for some reason). That is why I say that it is too open to interpretation, it is so ambigious that it is easy to read it in a dozen different ways and I can guarentee you that the lawyers will use the one that is most beneficial to them in any given case.
Except WotC has to choose to enforce it; this is not a scenario where everyone can come out and start tossing mud to see what sticks. It is one where if it comes to WotC’s attention that licensed content is being used to promote themes they don’t want associated with their brand, they can nix the license and thus their tacit association. Despite what the fear mongers are claiming, it’s not in WotC’s interest to use this as a bludgeon to arbitrarily quash content; that’s just going to drive people away from their product.
Couple things I notice, related to replies here and lightly tied to the latest draft.
The limitations on animations and fancy jazz for the VTT community looks like a play to license and sell these features to the VTT community. Also a chance to license and monetize some developed by the VTT community (so Wizards makes some and sells right to use them, also BUYS rights to some developed by others and sells that license to other VTT vendors. It really looks like a way of limiting the VTT to exactly that, a VTT. Anything animated is no longer a VIRTUAL TABLE TOP, but a DIGITAL TABLE TOP and, as listed, much closer to a video game, where a different agreement must be sorted. Spare me the complaints about how it enhances and improves the experience, it moves AWAY from TT and into VG.
The end of the old license. Well, there needs to be an agreement for that, so if it's no longer offered, there can't be an agreement. Stick whatever legalese terms you want, but if it isn't offered, it isn't available, it isn't valid for anything new, so it's officially dead.
Overall, I like it and I think it is really close to what we will end up with as a final document. Yes, there will certainly be some fine tuning and rewording, to address the details in areas and some alterations are likely, to fix some bits that aren't as clear as intended or might be a bit TOO restrictive. Overall, though, this addresses most of the major valid issues people have had with it.
Finally, to those doomspeakers who point our how many companies have run off to other companies to start work on a new system. How many of them have stated they were DONE with D&D again? I haven't heard any who claim they won't be doing D&D any more, because they're not stupid. They know they can make bigger bucks from the biggest gravy train, so they are exploring other options, without cutting off the hand that's fed them. Smart decision. Diversify your profile. So when this is all settled and they are managing 20% of the income D&D gave them by releasing new Pathfinder (or whatever) content, I expect to see a lot returning, to be where the money can be made. I am pretty sure most of the 3pp folks didn't jump into the ocean when this started, but damn near every one is standing by the lifeboats right now. If WotC gets this right and finalized, I would bet 90% of them go back to their spots and get back to work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I guess where i fall out of bed with 6f is...
No hate -> no conflict -> no story-> no adventure -> no game -> no fun
I mean, I run a gritter version of RPGs where players have to deal with real evils, such as slavery and hatred. Without evils int he game we might as well be playing Care Bears' Reunion...
No I think the game should be set up to direct hate at real people? Hell no, but the reality of the situation is, this isn't real life it is a game that we sit around a table and play with friends. Where the players are heroes who are out to correct the world's wrongs, but if there are no world's wrongs to correct, what is the hero to do?
Are there places where I can see this as a good thing (yah, see the aforementioned Hadoze(sp)) where monsters may be created to be specifically referential to IRL scenarios. Great, regulate that, but to make such a blanket statement, without any recourse, is not conducive to having a license that people would be willing to create under. Which I can't deny may be their goal... Not a smart one, imo, but they probably know things I don't...
Let us take this as an example, I want to create a story that plays similar to a REAL LIFE story of human history, so I create a villain who goes around killing 'ladies of the night' creating a 'Jack the Ripper' type of story hook. Oh wait, I can't because that would be hateful (involves murders by the villain that are devised with a prejudice in mind)... Falls afoul of the hateful (and possibly illegal clause). Ok, so now we have goblins attacking a village and the heroes are hired to protect the village... nope, can't do that, that insinuates that all goblins are evil (thus racist)... in the end, the ability to create compelling villains becomes next to impossible (or exceedingly predictable) if you can't have 'evil' tropes in the game.
Add to that, how do you define harmful? Harmful to WotC's bottom line? To their reputation (ie, if you make a better adventure than us, that is harmful to us)?
And to repeat, this is all without any recourse to fight it...
Add one last piece of fuel to the fire... We currently live in a world with the words Field and Fieldwork is being considered racist... So you write an into for the heroes... You walk into the village and everything is relatively quiet, the farmers are out in the fields. And in some states, that is racist... license gone (if they stick to the RAW).
Absolutely makes sense. And from their side for sure. Avoids a lot of headaches if they know who’s willing to go along with them. To me it’s a multifaceted decision and they have multiple reasons for their approach. All of which are to their benefit of course.
If they can't take the simple step of honoring their past promises, why would anyone believe their future promises?
We have factual information that tells us 1.0a was intended to be available forever, from its authors. That obligation is Hasbro/WotC's - they don't have the luxury of trying to pretend like it didn't happen. They kept the faq to that effect up for nearly two decades.
Why would anyone trust someone not to lie when their most recent relevant action is to lie?
Nothing can stop you from running your gritty games as you describe. That doesn't fall under the OGL or any of the agreements involved here. That is your expression. What they don't want is that baked into the publishings themselves. If your table wants all goblins to be evil and all Orcs to be barbarous marauders then you are free to do so.
If your argument is that you want those elements published then yes there could be concern, but as players we control the games at our tables and can modify the stories however we want. I'd also point to the fact that even to this day WotC official publishing include real evils. What they are concerned about are the monolithic all of this race is evil.
I glanced through this OGL 1.2 and even without reading everything... I already see vague contract language in place to be sure WotC and Hasbro maintain a strangle-hold over all content decisions of the creators.
Paragraph 6f is an absolute joke! You get to decide what's "harmful" and what's not? So that could be anything your delicate sensibilities deem bad, AND without discussion! ANYTHING. AND we have to swallow your decision with no debate. And given the "safe space" culture WotC has been fostering... why would anyone even bother? The fact you're still debating the name change to "Race" tells me everything I need to know. 6f will be a problem.
And Misc. paragraph 9 a-h!? Are you kidding? This essentially give WotC and Hasbro all the protection they need and denies the creator everything! We have to agree to waiver of jury trial in the event of disputes? LOL... you really think people are going to swallow this? I suppose the ones who don't care to read it will.
This here is just reinforcing my decision to stop spending money with WotC. BUT, I can still sit here and watch the forums without paying a cent.... that I can do! It's turning into a dumpster fire. And I do love watching things burn.
That may be their concern, but that is not what they wrote... And maybe I decide to publish an adventure arc out of something I ran at my table (as I know I'm not the only one who likes that kind of game)... It is just too open and too interpretative as it is written... So, while I understand they need to protect themselves (especially in a world where the word Field is considered racist), I don't agree with the way they are doing it.
The point you are missing: There is a difference between creating a world with sensitive topics in the world, and actively promulgating hate speech. Wizards themselves explores themes of intolerance - the Duergar in Out of the Abyss, for example, are exclusionary and racist. But they are created in such a way that the themes are explored, without there being an element of hate or the promulgation of real world stereotypes.
Compare to the Hadozee where, likely unintentionally, they released language that paralleled almost word for word arguments made by slave holders prior and during the civil war (the rather vile argument that taking the uncivilised monkeys and turned them into something intelligent which they would never have become if not kidnapped and made into slaves) and even made a couple statements that looked suspiciously similar to real world stereotypes (saying that the slave race is much hardier than other races, a stereotype which has measurable impacts in the medical field as doctors still hold the belief that those with African origins have higher pain tolerances).
The former is exploring themes in a way that respects the themes and explores the complexities of them; the latter is (even if accidentally) actively promoting hate speech as official content.
So, want to make a Jack the Ripper thing where he kills ladies of the night? Go for it - just don’t make the theme of it “and Jack is the abject hero because prostitutes deserve death.” That would be offensive. Instead, you could use it to explore themes about how the marginalised are forced to survive and the very things society forced them to do causes them to be shunned by society. That’s not offensive - that’s exploratory and conversational.
Mayb3 read and study the OGL before posting?
It was ABSOLUTELY contemplated to be used for software and other types of media.
I have seen a lot of edgelord Hasbro shill types in the comments who are hardcore invested in getting people to just give up and sign on to the new OGL, no matter what it is, because they can't seem to think about anyone else's position but their own for even a fraction of a second.
I've also seen people who are invested in being as jaded and cynical as possible insisting there's no point in resisting, y'know the classic Borg stuff, because they gave up in their souls so the rest of us should too - just give in to your corporate overlords, stop whining, it's getting annoying!
However, over 1500 companies signed on with Paizo's new plan, publicly. That's a huge amount of companies, even if a lot of them are small, you have to think that's 1500 businesses that used to sell D&D stuff that are just... not going to anymore. They may sell TTRPG stuff, but they're not going to do anything to go out of their way to promote, specifically, dungeons and dragons anymore. That's gonna leave a dent in the public image very quickly here, especially once Convention season rolls around. Wizards has no idea how badly they just cut off their nose to spite their face with this one.
Intent counts for something, but it’s not everything, particularly in contract law. And, again, why are you so wedded to 1.0a outside of what is essentially an appeal to tradition fallacy? Most likely WotC has the right to decide they are no longer extending an offer, even if that is not necessarily what the person who originally made the offer would have done. Control of that offer belongs to the company. They are putting another offer on the table, and fearmongering “what if they decide to burn their own community down” scenarios aside, it largely reintroduces the previous protections while giving WotC some protection from independent creators tarnishing their image. To be clear, I’m not saying WotC are paragons of virtue, but if you really don’t think they can be trusted at all, then it doesn’t matter what offer they make, and it’s probably just time for you to walk away from the franchise if you hate them that much.
I agree the language needs to be reworked and clarified in a lot of areas, but it isn't the doom and gloom so many people are promoting as "THEY WILL USE THIS TO SHUT EVERYONE DOWN!" Hasbro is a publicly traded company. It is not only motivated by profit, but is ethically and legally obligated to be motivated by profit as that's their shareholders interest. The safety valve of WotC going nuclear is the same saftey valve that brought us to OGL 1.2. If everyone walks away from the IP there is no profit.
I'm not aware of anyone legitimately claiming the word field is racist. I live in a rural state and I think I'd have heard about it if that were a legitimate concern. Are there people out there saying as such, I have no doubt, but there are also people saying obviously racist things aren't racist. We shouldn't be working this with those people in mind. They have always existed and we've managed to deal with it thus far.
WotC is not saying that you can't make a published game with racism or sexism as concepts, etc. What they are saying is you can't make a published game with racist or sexist elements. One is part of many story narratives and is a source for conflict in a story, one is perpetuating real-world harm/legacies of harm. Writer's who can't make that distinction aren't as good of writers as they think. they could better define this, but by doing so they invite people crossing lines because they weren't specifically defined.
Also, can you point to an example of "field" or "fieldwork" being racist IRL? because that is a new one for me. But using that as an example, lets look at three elements of a story shall we?
1) if you have a story setting where a village enslaves a certain group (lets say halflings) to perform manual fieldwork because the village believes their race is "inferior" due to their short stature, that is probably fine (unless you are siding with the villagers, but then you might have problems)
2) if you have a story setting where a village enslaves a certain group (lets say halflings) to pick cotton in a field because the village believes their race is "inferior" due to their short stature, that is a little on the nose, but probably fine, though more likely to garner action than #1 (again, definitely don't side with the villagers)
3) if you have a story where a village enslaves a certain group (lets say halflings) for either of the above for the same reasons...and uses a real-world pejorative to describe them, and makes jokes about how "these (perjorative)s are only good for picking cotton" That is probably going to be flagged as hateful and shut down.
Do you see where the line crosses from a story that is about racism to a story that contains racist elements? Given WotC's focus on elements of their own IP, this is likely the line drawn.
Krispy.
You are asking them to give up on changing their licensing agreements altogether.
Leaving 10.a authorized means there's no point in the existence of 1.2. Evil hateful bigots can doidge 1.2's provisions against evil hateful bigotry by simply using 1.0a instead. NFT grifters looking to scam people out of thousands or millions of dollars can dodge 1.2's provisions against NFT grifting by simply using 1.0a instead. "VTT" services unfairly dodging the tighter licensing restrictions on D&D video games can avoid the provisions restricting VTTs by using 1.0a instead.
You claim to not be against the things 1.2 is trying to do, yet you're inciting people to sabotage the thing by mandating that Wizards be forced to allow people to use the Old Shitty License instead. You keep saying "it's just keeping their promise", without ever acknowledging that the holes in 1.0a are a source of real concern and worry for people. Without ever acknowledging that creating a 1.2 without sunsetting 1.0a is utterly pointless and does not serve to protect anyone from anything.
Can you please - please - acknowledge that there are good reasons why 1.0a might have to go, even if the way Wizards tried to do it before getting their hand caught in the jar was reprehensible?
Please do not contact or message me.
They could offer the new version alongside 1.0a, and let creators pick.
Which is how it was supposed to work. If they want to update the OGL, it has to be voluntary on the part of the Community to accept the update.
There's really no way to reconcile them telling people that if they didn't like a new version they could ignore it (for 20 years), and now saying "actually, you have to take whatever shit deal we offer."
Then they need to write the 6f like that... as it is written right now, no, you wouldn't be able to because it is hateful and discriminatory (because that is the motivations of the main villain) and could be enough to get your license revoked without any recourse (especially if they didn't like you for some reason). That is why I say that it is too open to interpretation, it is so ambigious that it is easy to read it in a dozen different ways and I can guarentee you that the lawyers will use the one that is most beneficial to them in any given case.
There may be good reasons for them to want it to go - I'm not fundamentally against an anti-hate clause.
But that's not the question at hand. They have an obligation to leave it up as an option - they need to look into other pathways to identifying hateful content and crushing it.
6f is problematic and needs CAREFUL modification. Which will come as there is no end date to modifications until it is done and the community is satisfied. But saying 1.2 is the same as 1.1 is just not true.
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
Here is the link, it is being done by USC. USC will no longer use the word 'field' over racist 'connotations' (nypost.com)
and to be fair, a second link from a more liberal source for completeness. A USC office removes 'field' from its curriculum because of racist connotations : NPR
Except WotC has to choose to enforce it; this is not a scenario where everyone can come out and start tossing mud to see what sticks. It is one where if it comes to WotC’s attention that licensed content is being used to promote themes they don’t want associated with their brand, they can nix the license and thus their tacit association. Despite what the fear mongers are claiming, it’s not in WotC’s interest to use this as a bludgeon to arbitrarily quash content; that’s just going to drive people away from their product.
Couple things I notice, related to replies here and lightly tied to the latest draft.
The limitations on animations and fancy jazz for the VTT community looks like a play to license and sell these features to the VTT community. Also a chance to license and monetize some developed by the VTT community (so Wizards makes some and sells right to use them, also BUYS rights to some developed by others and sells that license to other VTT vendors. It really looks like a way of limiting the VTT to exactly that, a VTT. Anything animated is no longer a VIRTUAL TABLE TOP, but a DIGITAL TABLE TOP and, as listed, much closer to a video game, where a different agreement must be sorted. Spare me the complaints about how it enhances and improves the experience, it moves AWAY from TT and into VG.
The end of the old license. Well, there needs to be an agreement for that, so if it's no longer offered, there can't be an agreement. Stick whatever legalese terms you want, but if it isn't offered, it isn't available, it isn't valid for anything new, so it's officially dead.
Overall, I like it and I think it is really close to what we will end up with as a final document. Yes, there will certainly be some fine tuning and rewording, to address the details in areas and some alterations are likely, to fix some bits that aren't as clear as intended or might be a bit TOO restrictive. Overall, though, this addresses most of the major valid issues people have had with it.
Finally, to those doomspeakers who point our how many companies have run off to other companies to start work on a new system. How many of them have stated they were DONE with D&D again? I haven't heard any who claim they won't be doing D&D any more, because they're not stupid. They know they can make bigger bucks from the biggest gravy train, so they are exploring other options, without cutting off the hand that's fed them. Smart decision. Diversify your profile. So when this is all settled and they are managing 20% of the income D&D gave them by releasing new Pathfinder (or whatever) content, I expect to see a lot returning, to be where the money can be made. I am pretty sure most of the 3pp folks didn't jump into the ocean when this started, but damn near every one is standing by the lifeboats right now. If WotC gets this right and finalized, I would bet 90% of them go back to their spots and get back to work.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.