Gentlemen. A reminder - trim your quote chains. Billion-post quote chains longer than some mountain ranges are nigh unreadable and make following the thread far more difficult than it should be.,
As probably the worst offender of this, thank you for reminding me!
Billion-post quote chains longer than some mountain ranges are nigh unreadable and make following the thread far more difficult than it should be.,
As probably the worst offender of this, thank you for reminding me!
You can also use the spoiler tag to condense content if you would prefer not to the delete past quoted elements of the discussion. It shows up like what I did above with Yurei's quoted post
... [OGL already covers hateful content, they can already remove this stuff on an individual basis] ...
No it doesn't and no they can't.
1.0a is essentially beyond Wizards' control - anyone can publish using it for any reason at any time and Wizards has no recourse but to endorse the product so published. If Horrible Stuff Press published The Bigot's Guide to Genocide under 1.0a, Wizards would not be able to stop or contest it. Not to mention this thread and others have made it plain that The Community would not, in fact, support Wizards' efforts to take down such a book. Same for NFTs - if someone makes a blockchain game using OGL 1.0a, Wizards can't stop it despite blockchain games being actively reprehensible in virtually all known forms and guises. Same for if someone turns their "VTT" into a straight-up video game without going through the stricter licensing requirements necessary for video games.
This license you're all championing so god damned hard doesn't allow any redress for any of it. And that's no longer okay.
The VTT passage is far too broad though also. Simple animations make it a video game? Nah, WotC can gtfo with that. Can VTT's use locations, spells, classes, and items from D&D? No, though VTT's should not be held responsible for what their community makes. And I fear that WotC would not make such a distinction
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.
One school choosing to remove the term from their internal use is not indicative of a larger societal movement as you make it seem.
But yet, how many words over the past 5 years have been declared 'racist' simply because they were used at the same time as something bad? How many people and groups have been cancelled because they used a word that was perfectly acceptable at one time and then 5 years later were hammered because how dare they have said that 5 years ago (when it was perfectly normal)? By leaving this clause THIS open and ambiguous, that is what we are being left open to. People will think twice and anythign published will be much blander material due to this clause. That is my fear. It is sort of like my stance on the death penalty (which I oppose) I'd rather 100 guilty people spend life in jail (or even go free) than for one innocent person to have been executed. I'd rather one bad 'hate' book get through (with WotC's ability to fight it in courts) than to destroy all of the other books and adventures I'll never get to see now because people will fear and avoid this clause. There are other ways to accomplish this goal than to scare everyone away with extremely broad and widely interpreted statements.
This is just more of the, "but they could..." fearmongering. There is no appeasement to this stance in any world. Even if they made 1.0a irrevocable as so many demand here, They could still go nuclear and salt the earth in other ways. One can always take their toys and leave.
But you need to look at it from a publisher's standpoint... they need assurances that the product they are spending thousands on to produce can be sold. It isn't fear mongering, it is looking at a contract with non-emotional eyes (which is hard as I've played this game since like 1981ish). it isn't whether or not WotC would enforce it, it is could it be enforced on a given product and without some assurance (I do like the one where they have a list of people who can look over it, at your cost, to approve the language idea), but if there is any doubt, from a highly ambiguous statement that it could be enforced on a given product, it won't get made. It may of been fine, it may not of been astray of the intent, but it did fall astray of an interpretation of the license. I'm not opposed to something here; I believe it needs to be here given today's society. But at the same time, I think it is way to ambiguous and will prevent people from getting into 3PP projects due to it. I want to see this game succeed; I've liked it for a very long time. I just see this clause (as written) to not push forward that hope.
I'm not in the camp of 1.0A or bust, I'm not even opposed to most of the provisions of the new OGL. but 6f (as written) is not beneficial to the community, the fear of potential enforcement will slow and stop people from entering the 3PP game.
People must really enjoy living in fear. Look at any other IP or company worth anything and you'll notice they keep their IP on severe lockdown (try to use Disney material in anything you work on, I dare you).
Every one of these companies also has license/terms of service/terms of agreement/etc. that prohibit hate, bitgotry, or anything else that the company would perceive as damaging their image or brand. Every single company has this - all of those license agreements or terms of service you immediately skip over and hit "accept" ? Yeah, it's listed in there. And you can get banned, content removed, and potentially sued if you break those terms.
Wizards is trying to balance 1. providing their brand/IP for open use by content creators with 2. protecting their brand and image (they're an effing family friendly toy company, duh). They can just as easily do a Disney, Game of Thrones, WarHammer, Harry Potter, etc. and not let anyone use their brand/content at all under any circumstance.
... [OGL already covers hateful content, they can already remove this stuff on an individual basis] ...
No it doesn't and no they can't.
1.0a is essentially beyond Wizards' control - anyone can publish using it for any reason at any time and Wizards has no recourse but to endorse the product so published. If Horrible Stuff Press published The Bigot's Guide to Genocide under 1.0a, Wizards would not be able to stop or contest it. Not to mention this thread and others have made it plain that The Community would not, in fact, support Wizards' efforts to take down such a book. Same for NFTs - if someone makes a blockchain game using OGL 1.0a, Wizards can't stop it despite blockchain games being actively reprehensible in virtually all known forms and guises. Same for if someone turns their "VTT" into a straight-up video game without going through the stricter licensing requirements necessary for video games.
This license you're all championing so god damned hard doesn't allow any redress for any of it. And that's no longer okay.
But nobody has done any of that in the last 23 years since the OGL 1.0a started, why is that some urgent thing that requires starting over from scratch?
But nobody has done any of that in the last 23 years since the OGL 1.0a started, why is that some urgent thing that requires starting over from scratch?
Same reason everybody keeps screaming and screeching and caterwauling that 6f needs to be stricken entirely. Just because Wizards never has stricken anybody's book outside of obvious abuse cases like the Book of Erotic Fantasy doesn't many any of you believe they never will. You all think they're going to maliciously use their power of veto over hateful content to strike down random stuff from random people for...honestly, no reason at all.
Why should Wizards believe, in an ever more polarized world where evil hateful bigots are taking any platform they can get to spread their evil hateful messages, that people will not publish evil hateful content under OGL 1.0 just because Wizards has meekly asked them really nicely not to? Ernie G already tried, if in a particularly dumb manner that left him open to lawsuit. Not all evil hateful bigots are stupid though, and I guarantee you that if 1.0a remains, somebody WILL try and publish something reprehensible under Wizards; name with Wizards' game. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when", and a matter of whether we're allowed to do fuggoff anything about it when it happens.
But nobody has done any of that in the last 23 years since the OGL 1.0a started, why is that some urgent thing that requires starting over from scratch?
If you look at the last 2 years alone, you will see exploitation, piracy and such is on a HUGE uptick. Hate crimes are finally being reported, tracked and it is WAY out of control. While the last 23 years have maybe dodged a bullet, we are now living in a time of evolution, growth and expansion at a rate we've never seen or experienced. It's urgent now because SO many things we never though of then are occurring now and a lot of them are not good.
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.
... Stop having the argument they want you to have and start asking questions about why the original OGL can't simply have a Hateful Conduct clause included, but remain otherwise unaltered.
Because OGL 1.0a cannot be modified or altered. Or rather it can be, but no one cares because modifications to OGL 1.0a are opt-in and can be freely ignored by users of the license, which effectively and practically means the license cannot be modified or altered. The "Any Authorized Version" clause of OGL 1.0a means Wizards cannot insert protective clauses into 1.0a because then evil hateful bigots would just use the previous version of the OGL 1.0 that allows for evil hateful bigotry in products.
As for the VTT thing? I'm sorry, but I just cannot bring myself to care whether or not VTTs can use fancy-pancy animated renditions of Wizards' IP in their service. I do not, personally, see a problem as the restriction against Stuff That Doesn't Simulate Sitting Around The Table only applies if you want to make an SRD-enabled D&D plug-in for your VTT. Such plugins are manifestly unnecessary, as TaleSpire's entire existence conclusively demonstrates. Modders that make spell animation plug-ins available for free on community websites for existing VTTs are, I believe, a Fan Content policy thing, not an OGL thing. I have yet to see an argument that convinces me elsewise. Sorry.
Believe me, you have been quite clear about your disdain for people using VTT features that you personally wouldn't use. I'm not sure why you think that should be a point for consideration for those that do, though. What is "necessary" for games of make believe is completely subjective - you can continue being snide about it, but I don't understand how you think that will win anyone over. Although, to be frank, I suspect you're looking to rile people up in the hopes that them reacting somehow "proves your point"
The VTT policy, as it stands, would affect a large number of content creators, and they are understandably worried. It also looks to be written by someone with no actual understanding of how VTT's function, or the surrounding communities - hopefully the current use case examples are written out of ignorance rather than malice, but if not I suspect DnD will lose its place as the go to system for online play.
But you need to look at it from a publisher's standpoint... they need assurances that the product they are spending thousands on to produce can be sold. It isn't fear mongering, it is looking at a contract with non-emotional eyes (which is hard as I've played this game since like 1981ish). it isn't whether or not WotC would enforce it, it is could it be enforced on a given product and without some assurance (I do like the one where they have a list of people who can look over it, at your cost, to approve the language idea), but if there is any doubt, from a highly ambiguous statement that it could be enforced on a given product, it won't get made. It may of been fine, it may not of been astray of the intent, but it did fall astray of an interpretation of the license. I'm not opposed to something here; I believe it needs to be here given today's society. But at the same time, I think it is way to ambiguous and will prevent people from getting into 3PP projects due to it. I want to see this game succeed; I've liked it for a very long time. I just see this clause (as written) to not push forward that hope.
The way you get more assurance than is offered by the OGL is by contacting WotC licensing and getting a custom license. The reason for offering a general license like the OGL is because that sort of individual negotiation is time-consuming and expensive.
The reality is, there are a ton of ways your project can fail, and this is one of them; that risk should absolutely be part of your calculation. However, it's a fairly low risk for most products.
People must really enjoy living in fear. Look at any other IP or company worth anything and you'll notice they keep their IP on severe lockdown (try to use Disney material in anything you work on, I dare you).
Every one of these companies also has license/terms of service/terms of agreement/etc. that prohibit hate, bitgotry, or anything else that the company would perceive as damaging their image or brand. Every single company has this - all of those license agreements or terms of service you immediately skip over and hit "accept" ? Yeah, it's listed in there. And you can get banned, content removed, and potentially sued if you break those terms.
Wizards is trying to balance 1. providing their brand/IP for open use by content creators with 2. protecting their brand and image (they're an effing family friendly toy company, duh). They can just as easily do a Disney, Game of Thrones, WarHammer, Harry Potter, etc. and not let anyone use their brand/content at all under any circumstance.
This situation is pretty darned unique to this situation and industry.
Most of what the OGL covers isn't copyright protective IP - it's game mechanics, and possibly some degree of expression.
All of Wizards BRAND and iconic IP is... not included.
The OGL is largely symbolic, a peace treaty for the industry so everyone can do their thing without the biggest company slinging endless lawsuits to kill smaller players.
There's really no equivalence to other companies protecting their IP closely. Wizards is doing that just the same.
Gentlemen. A reminder - trim your quote chains. Billion-post quote chains longer than some mountain ranges are nigh unreadable and make following the thread far more difficult than it should be.,
But nobody has done any of that in the last 23 years since the OGL 1.0a started, why is that some urgent thing that requires starting over from scratch?
Same reason everybody keeps screaming and screeching and caterwauling that 6f needs to be stricken entirely. Just because Wizards never has stricken anybody's book outside of obvious abuse cases like the Book of Erotic Fantasy doesn't many any of you believe they never will. You all think they're going to maliciously use their power of veto over hateful content to strike down random stuff from random people for...honestly, no reason at all.
Why should Wizards believe, in an ever more polarized world where evil hateful bigots are taking any platform they can get to spread their evil hateful messages, that people will not publish evil hateful content under OGL 1.0 just because Wizards has meekly asked them really nicely not to? Ernie G already tried, if in a particularly dumb manner that left him open to lawsuit. Not all evil hateful bigots are stupid though, and I guarantee you that if 1.0a remains, somebody WILL try and publish something reprehensible under Wizards; name with Wizards' game. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when", and a matter of whether we're allowed to do fuggoff anything about it when it happens.
A year ago I would have said that Wizards throwing out all of the goodwill they built up in 5e by throwing out the coordinated promotion and support of 3rd party publishers would be a ridiculous idea but here we are. They have shown they are only interested in being controlling to an extreme with how they are trying to restrict VTTs so there won't be any competition with theirs.
I'm sorry you have fallen for the 'think of the children' propaganda.
But nobody has done any of that in the last 23 years since the OGL 1.0a started, why is that some urgent thing that requires starting over from scratch?
Same reason everybody keeps screaming and screeching and caterwauling that 6f needs to be stricken entirely. Just because Wizards never has stricken anybody's book outside of obvious abuse cases like the Book of Erotic Fantasy doesn't many any of you believe they never will. You all think they're going to maliciously use their power of veto over hateful content to strike down random stuff from random people for...honestly, no reason at all.
Why should Wizards believe, in an ever more polarized world where evil hateful bigots are taking any platform they can get to spread their evil hateful messages, that people will not publish evil hateful content under OGL 1.0 just because Wizards has meekly asked them really nicely not to? Ernie G already tried, if in a particularly dumb manner that left him open to lawsuit. Not all evil hateful bigots are stupid though, and I guarantee you that if 1.0a remains, somebody WILL try and publish something reprehensible under Wizards; name with Wizards' game. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when", and a matter of whether we're allowed to do fuggoff anything about it when it happens.
Here's the flip side of this argument. What makes you believe, in an ever more polarized world where evil hateful bigots are gaining power in executive offices and legislatures and judiciaries as well as lobbying groups, that Wizards won't change their sights to nuke horror, 'dark' fantasy, and LGBTQ material and label it as 'hateful' in order to appease them and their lobbying group minions? With the current language they absolutely could.
I want to address something generally that keeps cropping up in this thread. I think myself and others have tried to address it, but usually as part of another argument and perhaps that is getting it bogged down. And I was just reminded of it by a Youtube video so here it is.
Anyone claiming they know 100% the outcome of any legal challenge surrounding the revocation of OGL 1.0a (or any other legal challenge) cannot be that certain. Even if they say they have a lawyer backing it up. This goes both ways and I am not singling out either side. I've said it before, every lawsuit has at least one lawyer making a losing argument. Sometimes we even know the argument is a longshot, but you can be damned sure that lawyer is making the argument they find most beneficial to their client (within ethical constraints). For every lawyer saying 1.0a is not revocable because of XYZ, there is another lawyer saying the opposite because of ABC. Some of those lawyers represent 3PPs, content creators, VTTs, and other entities impacted by this and some of them most certainly represent WotC and it's partners. To be clear having a client in this issue or not isn't indicative of an opinion being better or more correct either. Just because a lawyer states an opinion on how they think a court will rule (myself included) does not mean they are right (again myself included).
I have stated multiple times my opinion that 1.0a is revocable as it is written and touched on some of my reasoning for believing so. That position has softened a bit as I've learned more about the goings on when it was adopted, but presently I'm not convinced enough to change my opinion. I bring myself up as an example here because it demonstrates how legal opinions, like non-legal opinions, can and do change as the facts available change. Also, a legal opinion is not legal advice. If you need legal advice you need to speak with an attorney in your jurisdiction about possible representation. Do not rely on an internet forum or Youtube videos.
There are areas of the law that are essentially so formulaic you can nearly guarantee an outcome, but those are typically procedural matters or instances where the facts are so plain and obvious to argue otherwise would rise to one of those ethical violations hinted at above. Even past cases piled mountain high supporting your argument is not a guarantee you will win. Precedent can change (see Roe v Wade as the biggest example currently). Cases are also fact specific and even seemingly mundane or minor differences can result in wildly different outcomes.
Here's the flip side of this argument. What makes you believe, in an ever more polarized world where evil hateful bigots are gaining power in executive offices and legislatures and judiciaries as well as lobbying groups, that Wizards won't change their sights to nuke horror, 'dark' fantasy, and LGBTQ material and label it as 'hateful' in order to appease them and their lobbying group minions? With the current language they absolutely could.
I mean, ironing out a strong, useful, and clear version of 6F would help safeguard against this, too. Maybe if the overseeing of it were put in the hands of a body established specifically for this. I don't know that there is a third party the industry could refer to for this, but at the very least a committee of the cultural consultants they already employ might be the way to go. Maybe even a DEI Division with a c-level head.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Here's the flip side of this argument. What makes you believe, in an ever more polarized world where evil hateful bigots are gaining power in executive offices and legislatures and judiciaries as well as lobbying groups, that Wizards won't change their sights to nuke horror, 'dark' fantasy, and LGBTQ material and label it as 'hateful' in order to appease them and their lobbying group minions? With the current language they absolutely could.
I mean, ironing out a strong, useful, and clear version of 6F would help safeguard against this, too. Maybe if the overseeing of it were put in the hands of a body established specifically for this. I don't know that there is a third party the industry could refer to for this, but at the very least a committee of the cultural consultants they already employ might be the way to go. Maybe even a DEI Division with a c-level head.
I think creating a standing committee is less likely than an appeals board made up of volunteers similar to what Facebook came up with last year. Regardless leaving everything in the sole discretion of Wizards leaves things to be able to change with the wind.
Here's the flip side of this argument. What makes you believe, in an ever more polarized world where evil hateful bigots are gaining power in executive offices and legislatures and judiciaries as well as lobbying groups, that Wizards won't change their sights to nuke horror, 'dark' fantasy, and LGBTQ material and label it as 'hateful' in order to appease them and their lobbying group minions? With the current language they absolutely could.
I mean, ironing out a strong, useful, and clear version of 6F would help safeguard against this, too. Maybe if the overseeing of it were put in the hands of a body established specifically for this. I don't know that there is a third party the industry could refer to for this, but at the very least a committee of the cultural consultants they already employ might be the way to go. Maybe even a DEI Division with a c-level head.
I think creating a standing committee is less likely than an appeals board made up of volunteers similar to what Facebook came up with last year. Regardless leaving everything in the sole discretion of Wizards leaves things to be able to change with the wind.
There’s no functional difference between leaving it up to WotC vs creating a committee; either way it’s a group of people making a subjective call. A committee sounds better in theory, but how is the execution going to work? Honestly I think this is a point we simply need to accept we cannot preemptively control; if WotC attempts to abuse the authority, we vote with our wallets and leave.
As probably the worst offender of this, thank you for reminding me!
Apologies
You can also use the spoiler tag to condense content if you would prefer not to the delete past quoted elements of the discussion. It shows up like what I did above with Yurei's quoted post
The VTT passage is far too broad though also. Simple animations make it a video game? Nah, WotC can gtfo with that. Can VTT's use locations, spells, classes, and items from D&D? No, though VTT's should not be held responsible for what their community makes. And I fear that WotC would not make such a distinction
But you need to look at it from a publisher's standpoint... they need assurances that the product they are spending thousands on to produce can be sold. It isn't fear mongering, it is looking at a contract with non-emotional eyes (which is hard as I've played this game since like 1981ish). it isn't whether or not WotC would enforce it, it is could it be enforced on a given product and without some assurance (I do like the one where they have a list of people who can look over it, at your cost, to approve the language idea), but if there is any doubt, from a highly ambiguous statement that it could be enforced on a given product, it won't get made. It may of been fine, it may not of been astray of the intent, but it did fall astray of an interpretation of the license. I'm not opposed to something here; I believe it needs to be here given today's society. But at the same time, I think it is way to ambiguous and will prevent people from getting into 3PP projects due to it. I want to see this game succeed; I've liked it for a very long time. I just see this clause (as written) to not push forward that hope.
I'm not in the camp of 1.0A or bust, I'm not even opposed to most of the provisions of the new OGL. but 6f (as written) is not beneficial to the community, the fear of potential enforcement will slow and stop people from entering the 3PP game.
People must really enjoy living in fear. Look at any other IP or company worth anything and you'll notice they keep their IP on severe lockdown (try to use Disney material in anything you work on, I dare you).
Every one of these companies also has license/terms of service/terms of agreement/etc. that prohibit hate, bitgotry, or anything else that the company would perceive as damaging their image or brand. Every single company has this - all of those license agreements or terms of service you immediately skip over and hit "accept" ? Yeah, it's listed in there. And you can get banned, content removed, and potentially sued if you break those terms.
Wizards is trying to balance 1. providing their brand/IP for open use by content creators with 2. protecting their brand and image (they're an effing family friendly toy company, duh). They can just as easily do a Disney, Game of Thrones, WarHammer, Harry Potter, etc. and not let anyone use their brand/content at all under any circumstance.
But nobody has done any of that in the last 23 years since the OGL 1.0a started, why is that some urgent thing that requires starting over from scratch?
Same reason everybody keeps screaming and screeching and caterwauling that 6f needs to be stricken entirely. Just because Wizards never has stricken anybody's book outside of obvious abuse cases like the Book of Erotic Fantasy doesn't many any of you believe they never will. You all think they're going to maliciously use their power of veto over hateful content to strike down random stuff from random people for...honestly, no reason at all.
Why should Wizards believe, in an ever more polarized world where evil hateful bigots are taking any platform they can get to spread their evil hateful messages, that people will not publish evil hateful content under OGL 1.0 just because Wizards has meekly asked them really nicely not to? Ernie G already tried, if in a particularly dumb manner that left him open to lawsuit. Not all evil hateful bigots are stupid though, and I guarantee you that if 1.0a remains, somebody WILL try and publish something reprehensible under Wizards; name with Wizards' game. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when", and a matter of whether we're allowed to do fuggoff anything about it when it happens.
Please do not contact or message me.
If you look at the last 2 years alone, you will see exploitation, piracy and such is on a HUGE uptick. Hate crimes are finally being reported, tracked and it is WAY out of control. While the last 23 years have maybe dodged a bullet, we are now living in a time of evolution, growth and expansion at a rate we've never seen or experienced. It's urgent now because SO many things we never though of then are occurring now and a lot of them are not good.
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.
Believe me, you have been quite clear about your disdain for people using VTT features that you personally wouldn't use. I'm not sure why you think that should be a point for consideration for those that do, though. What is "necessary" for games of make believe is completely subjective - you can continue being snide about it, but I don't understand how you think that will win anyone over. Although, to be frank, I suspect you're looking to rile people up in the hopes that them reacting somehow "proves your point"
The VTT policy, as it stands, would affect a large number of content creators, and they are understandably worried. It also looks to be written by someone with no actual understanding of how VTT's function, or the surrounding communities - hopefully the current use case examples are written out of ignorance rather than malice, but if not I suspect DnD will lose its place as the go to system for online play.
The way you get more assurance than is offered by the OGL is by contacting WotC licensing and getting a custom license. The reason for offering a general license like the OGL is because that sort of individual negotiation is time-consuming and expensive.
The reality is, there are a ton of ways your project can fail, and this is one of them; that risk should absolutely be part of your calculation. However, it's a fairly low risk for most products.
This situation is pretty darned unique to this situation and industry.
Most of what the OGL covers isn't copyright protective IP - it's game mechanics, and possibly some degree of expression.
All of Wizards BRAND and iconic IP is... not included.
The OGL is largely symbolic, a peace treaty for the industry so everyone can do their thing without the biggest company slinging endless lawsuits to kill smaller players.
There's really no equivalence to other companies protecting their IP closely. Wizards is doing that just the same.
I do apologize for that as well...
A year ago I would have said that Wizards throwing out all of the goodwill they built up in 5e by throwing out the coordinated promotion and support of 3rd party publishers would be a ridiculous idea but here we are. They have shown they are only interested in being controlling to an extreme with how they are trying to restrict VTTs so there won't be any competition with theirs.
I'm sorry you have fallen for the 'think of the children' propaganda.
Here's the flip side of this argument. What makes you believe, in an ever more polarized world where evil hateful bigots are gaining power in executive offices and legislatures and judiciaries as well as lobbying groups, that Wizards won't change their sights to nuke horror, 'dark' fantasy, and LGBTQ material and label it as 'hateful' in order to appease them and their lobbying group minions? With the current language they absolutely could.
I want to address something generally that keeps cropping up in this thread. I think myself and others have tried to address it, but usually as part of another argument and perhaps that is getting it bogged down. And I was just reminded of it by a Youtube video so here it is.
Anyone claiming they know 100% the outcome of any legal challenge surrounding the revocation of OGL 1.0a (or any other legal challenge) cannot be that certain. Even if they say they have a lawyer backing it up. This goes both ways and I am not singling out either side. I've said it before, every lawsuit has at least one lawyer making a losing argument. Sometimes we even know the argument is a longshot, but you can be damned sure that lawyer is making the argument they find most beneficial to their client (within ethical constraints). For every lawyer saying 1.0a is not revocable because of XYZ, there is another lawyer saying the opposite because of ABC. Some of those lawyers represent 3PPs, content creators, VTTs, and other entities impacted by this and some of them most certainly represent WotC and it's partners. To be clear having a client in this issue or not isn't indicative of an opinion being better or more correct either. Just because a lawyer states an opinion on how they think a court will rule (myself included) does not mean they are right (again myself included).
I have stated multiple times my opinion that 1.0a is revocable as it is written and touched on some of my reasoning for believing so. That position has softened a bit as I've learned more about the goings on when it was adopted, but presently I'm not convinced enough to change my opinion. I bring myself up as an example here because it demonstrates how legal opinions, like non-legal opinions, can and do change as the facts available change. Also, a legal opinion is not legal advice. If you need legal advice you need to speak with an attorney in your jurisdiction about possible representation. Do not rely on an internet forum or Youtube videos.
There are areas of the law that are essentially so formulaic you can nearly guarantee an outcome, but those are typically procedural matters or instances where the facts are so plain and obvious to argue otherwise would rise to one of those ethical violations hinted at above. Even past cases piled mountain high supporting your argument is not a guarantee you will win. Precedent can change (see Roe v Wade as the biggest example currently). Cases are also fact specific and even seemingly mundane or minor differences can result in wildly different outcomes.
I mean, ironing out a strong, useful, and clear version of 6F would help safeguard against this, too. Maybe if the overseeing of it were put in the hands of a body established specifically for this. I don't know that there is a third party the industry could refer to for this, but at the very least a committee of the cultural consultants they already employ might be the way to go. Maybe even a DEI Division with a c-level head.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I think creating a standing committee is less likely than an appeals board made up of volunteers similar to what Facebook came up with last year. Regardless leaving everything in the sole discretion of Wizards leaves things to be able to change with the wind.
There’s no functional difference between leaving it up to WotC vs creating a committee; either way it’s a group of people making a subjective call. A committee sounds better in theory, but how is the execution going to work? Honestly I think this is a point we simply need to accept we cannot preemptively control; if WotC attempts to abuse the authority, we vote with our wallets and leave.
I read the license and I don't like it. This man gives a good summary of my own views. It's a start but it is not perfect.
Wizards' New OGL Is A Mess Of Lies And Actually Good Ideas - YouTube