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.
Ah how the worm has turned. Did you really just ask that? Oh the irony. My answer is "because it doesn't say they can't." You're right, irrevocable is a legal term. It has a legal meaning. That meaning would, generally mean that the license, which is being offered, cannot be revoked or terminated. That's not what it means here, though. It clearly says here that they want it to mean something entirely different. This is what we in lawyerland call a "loophole."
While they probably need to establish a 3rd party arbitration panel, the problem is that setting down the "SPECIFIC" offensive things, means anything else is fair game. If they define one thing, but don't define something else, that that something else is automatically Ok. So how do you completely and entirely define it in away to cover all possible lawyer interpretations. An arbitration board would satisfy the need, but in the end, WotC is the final decision maker on hateful content, and there is no way to strictly define it in a legal document that would cover every possible scenario and not leave /something/ open to interpretation.
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.
There simply aren't solutions that don't involve removing it from their products (if someone else uses it for a purpose completely unconnected to D&D, that's... not really under their control to start with).
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.
I know of those issues. But the ORC wouldn't be under their purview, if they decide to be the custodians of it I will be against it instantly. And using whataboutism's isn't going to change the subject. Paizo has issues, yes. But this isnt about work ethics or harrasment, this is about how WotC tried to undermine the original OGL and now that they had been caught have to play ball and sit at the negotiation table at a disadvantage.
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?
Those are not good reasons against 1.0a.
WotC can easily DMCA any company that tries to infringe on their IP or TM. No need to update the OGL because of that. They did that against NuTSR last year. And it was a very quick process.
The 1.0a always covered software - WotC aknowledge that in their own FAQ for almost 2 decades. You could make the naive argument that back in 2000, VTTs were not a thing. HOWEVER, they licensed 5e SRD 5.1 in 2016 - at that time, VTTs were all well stablished and had several advanced features (specially Fantasy Grounds).
A naive reading of the OGL 1.2 might lead you to think otherwise. But for the most of us, it's clear as day that's all a smoke screen to obfuscate the fact that they want to stifle the competition, unethically and unfairly so.
I love D&D, don't get me wrong. I play since I was 8 years old, back in 1995. And it pains me to see it getting destroyed by a greedy, unscrupulous company as WizBro.
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.
Today maybe, tomorrow who knows. The point is, you can't know what the next person to head WotC or Hasboro will think. If it isn't spelled out now what is enforceable and what is not and it an ever evolving paradigm of public opinion and public pressure, then sure they could in fact not enforce it today, but enforce it tomorrow, because they have left themselves that room in their ambiguity.
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?
There would be some benefits of it, but the way they use blanket terminology to cover the whole hate and bigotry topic in OGL 1.2 is far, far, far too broad. It is entirely too subjective, some people are offended simply because you don't explicitly agree with them. Does that mean they have to be canceled? There's not check and balances on such an abuse in the current draft.
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.
Today maybe, tomorrow who knows. The point is, you can't know what the next person to head WotC or Hasboro will think. If it isn't spelled out now what is enforceable and what is not and it an ever evolving paradigm of public opinion and public pressure, then sure they could in fact not enforce it today, but enforce it tomorrow, because they have left themselves that room in their ambiguity.
I believe they call not knowing for certain what will happen tomorrow “real life”
WotC can easily DMCA any company that tries to infringe on their IP or TM.
WotC most certainly cannot DMCA a company that is using their IP in accordance with a license WotC gave them. DMCA is for people who are using things without a license, or in violation of that license.
Ah how the worm has turned. Did you really just ask that? Oh the irony. My answer is "because it doesn't say they can't." You're right, irrevocable is a legal term. It has a legal meaning. That meaning would, generally mean that the license, which is being offered, cannot be revoked or terminated. That's not what it means here, though. It clearly says here that they want it to mean something entirely different. This is what we in lawyerland call a "loophole."
While they probably need to establish a 3rd party arbitration panel, the problem is that setting down the "SPECIFIC" offensive things, means anything else is fair game. If they define one thing, but don't define something else, that that something else is automatically Ok. So how do you completely and entirely define it in away to cover all possible lawyer interpretations. An arbitration board would satisfy the need, but in the end, WotC is the final decision maker on hateful content, and there is no way to strictly define it in a legal document that would cover every possible scenario and not leave /something/ open to interpretation.
Definitions like this in contracts are typically non-exhaustive lists. Meaning the list serves as some examples rather than to the inclusion of all other instances, whether similar to the provided examples or not. I do think it would be beneficial to have some of these listed explicitly, but even then those wanting a concrete are not likely to get it in any event.
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.
You are actively disallowing them the only means they can have of dealing with evil hateful bigotry, NFT grifting, and abusive bad actors. You're saying Wizards is not allowed to take any meaningful action to safeguard D&D from bad actors that are seeking to profit unfairly and abusively from modern technologies 1.0a was never prepared for, or from evil hateful bigots who want to use D&D's popularity and reach to get their evil hateful bigoted message in front of new faces.
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.
You are actively disallowing them the only means they can have of dealing with evil hateful bigotry, NFT grifting, and abusive bad actors. You're saying Wizards is not allowed to take any meaningful action to safeguard D&D from bad actors that are seeking to profit unfairly and abusively from modern technologies 1.0a was never prepared for, or from evil hateful bigots who want to use D&D's popularity and reach to get their evil hateful bigoted message in front of new faces.
Why?
That's not the only means they have. They're a billion dollar company - they have options.
LLike securing their non-OGL copyright and trademarks behind additional licensing and trademarks. Like communicating with their community, and highlighting and condemning bad actors.
All of which is a distraction- the anti-hate clause isn't the only thing they're adding. If it were, I'd be waaaay more sympathetic. But it's just a smokescreen for their business goals.
If hateful bigotry, NFT's, Grifting, bad actors etc. were rampant in the community, I think you might have a leg to stand on with this argument - but the thing is, I see literally none of that in D&D. Like, at all. I see HASBRO trying to sell some Power Ranger NFT's, but I don't see Indestructoboy or Critical Role out there shilling NFT's or grifting players with cheap books that are full of errors and light on content - I see Wizards doing that though!
You're arguing that they need to be able to protect themselves against something that isn't happening, that they already have the right to protect themselves from anyway [OGL already covers hateful content, they can already remove this stuff on an individual basis] and that we should basically throw our rights on the pyre so that they can have the right to be protected from this imaginary threat. It's kinda insane.
Definitions like this in contracts are typically non-exhaustive lists. Meaning the list serves as some examples rather than to the inclusion of all other instances, whether similar to the provided examples or not. I do think it would be beneficial to have some of these listed explicitly, but even then those wanting a concrete are not likely to get it in any event.
Ah, yes, “including, but not limited to, the following:” I don’t think there’s a phrase on my computer that I can type out faster.
I wouldn’t mind some specific examples, bit ultimately do not think that is a hill worth dying on. I also think it might be counterproductive - the document is clearly written to be as concise as possible without leaving out anything material, almost certainly so regular folks can see it, read it, and are not intimidated by the length. Specific language (even non-exclusive language) both invites people to try and skirt the specific language (while ignoring the “but not limited to” clause) and would lengthen the document in a way that undermines part of its purpose.
So, for myself, I can go either way on that - I always like having more information and examples, but I don’t think they are so important that I would be upset if Wizards put other considerations above that type of clarification.
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.
... [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.
If hateful bigotry . . . [was] rampant in the community, I think you might have a leg to stand on with this argument - but the thing is, I see literally none of that in D&D. Like, at all.
I really, really wish I could share this sentiment. But I can’t, because it is fiction. Unfortunately, bigotry is really common in the D&D community, as it is with most nerd fandoms. I get that you have only really been active on the forums for this issue, but those of us who have been here longer have seen scores of objectively bigoted posts, hate speech, slurs, and worse. Those of us who have been active in various Discords know that there is a cancer of hate eating away at certain parts of the game, with that hate having taken root decades ago.
You’ll find plenty of users on this forum (I will not out them—it’s not my place to) who have directly experienced prejudice by other members of the community.
It is a problem, and the fact that it hasn’t been a problem under 1.0 is nothing short of miraculous. And, with the game growing ever more popular, the world growing ever more polarised, and a new edition coming out offering a fresh start, now is the time to stop counting on miracles and start taking actual action.
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.
Again, it’s not some reporting system where anyone with bad intentions and/or too much time on their hands can run around flagging people; unless WotC personally decides they need to take action, nothing will happen. It is true I cannot categorically rule out the possibility that they’ll decide to go overboard, but the same thing can be said for any other moderated forum. This is not some unique or unprecedented idea, it’s just that right now we’ve got a bunch of people insisting WotC has nothing but bad intentions even to their own detriment that creates illusion that this is something new and risky.
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.
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.,
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
One school choosing to remove the term from their internal use is not indicative of a larger societal movement as you make it seem.
While they probably need to establish a 3rd party arbitration panel, the problem is that setting down the "SPECIFIC" offensive things, means anything else is fair game. If they define one thing, but don't define something else, that that something else is automatically Ok. So how do you completely and entirely define it in away to cover all possible lawyer interpretations. An arbitration board would satisfy the need, but in the end, WotC is the final decision maker on hateful content, and there is no way to strictly define it in a legal document that would cover every possible scenario and not leave /something/ open to interpretation.
There simply aren't solutions that don't involve removing it from their products (if someone else uses it for a purpose completely unconnected to D&D, that's... not really under their control to start with).
I know of those issues. But the ORC wouldn't be under their purview, if they decide to be the custodians of it I will be against it instantly. And using whataboutism's isn't going to change the subject. Paizo has issues, yes. But this isnt about work ethics or harrasment, this is about how WotC tried to undermine the original OGL and now that they had been caught have to play ball and sit at the negotiation table at a disadvantage.
Those are not good reasons against 1.0a.
WotC can easily DMCA any company that tries to infringe on their IP or TM. No need to update the OGL because of that. They did that against NuTSR last year. And it was a very quick process.
The 1.0a always covered software - WotC aknowledge that in their own FAQ for almost 2 decades. You could make the naive argument that back in 2000, VTTs were not a thing. HOWEVER, they licensed 5e SRD 5.1 in 2016 - at that time, VTTs were all well stablished and had several advanced features (specially Fantasy Grounds).
A naive reading of the OGL 1.2 might lead you to think otherwise. But for the most of us, it's clear as day that's all a smoke screen to obfuscate the fact that they want to stifle the competition, unethically and unfairly so.
I love D&D, don't get me wrong. I play since I was 8 years old, back in 1995. And it pains me to see it getting destroyed by a greedy, unscrupulous company as WizBro.
Today maybe, tomorrow who knows. The point is, you can't know what the next person to head WotC or Hasboro will think. If it isn't spelled out now what is enforceable and what is not and it an ever evolving paradigm of public opinion and public pressure, then sure they could in fact not enforce it today, but enforce it tomorrow, because they have left themselves that room in their ambiguity.
There would be some benefits of it, but the way they use blanket terminology to cover the whole hate and bigotry topic in OGL 1.2 is far, far, far too broad. It is entirely too subjective, some people are offended simply because you don't explicitly agree with them. Does that mean they have to be canceled? There's not check and balances on such an abuse in the current draft.
I believe they call not knowing for certain what will happen tomorrow “real life”
WotC most certainly cannot DMCA a company that is using their IP in accordance with a license WotC gave them. DMCA is for people who are using things without a license, or in violation of that license.
Definitions like this in contracts are typically non-exhaustive lists. Meaning the list serves as some examples rather than to the inclusion of all other instances, whether similar to the provided examples or not. I do think it would be beneficial to have some of these listed explicitly, but even then those wanting a concrete are not likely to get it in any event.
You are actively disallowing them the only means they can have of dealing with evil hateful bigotry, NFT grifting, and abusive bad actors. You're saying Wizards is not allowed to take any meaningful action to safeguard D&D from bad actors that are seeking to profit unfairly and abusively from modern technologies 1.0a was never prepared for, or from evil hateful bigots who want to use D&D's popularity and reach to get their evil hateful bigoted message in front of new faces.
Why?
Please do not contact or message me.
That's not the only means they have. They're a billion dollar company - they have options.
LLike securing their non-OGL copyright and trademarks behind additional licensing and trademarks. Like communicating with their community, and highlighting and condemning bad actors.
All of which is a distraction- the anti-hate clause isn't the only thing they're adding. If it were, I'd be waaaay more sympathetic. But it's just a smokescreen for their business goals.
If hateful bigotry, NFT's, Grifting, bad actors etc. were rampant in the community, I think you might have a leg to stand on with this argument - but the thing is, I see literally none of that in D&D. Like, at all. I see HASBRO trying to sell some Power Ranger NFT's, but I don't see Indestructoboy or Critical Role out there shilling NFT's or grifting players with cheap books that are full of errors and light on content - I see Wizards doing that though!
You're arguing that they need to be able to protect themselves against something that isn't happening, that they already have the right to protect themselves from anyway [OGL already covers hateful content, they can already remove this stuff on an individual basis] and that we should basically throw our rights on the pyre so that they can have the right to be protected from this imaginary threat. It's kinda insane.
Ah, yes, “including, but not limited to, the following:” I don’t think there’s a phrase on my computer that I can type out faster.
I wouldn’t mind some specific examples, bit ultimately do not think that is a hill worth dying on. I also think it might be counterproductive - the document is clearly written to be as concise as possible without leaving out anything material, almost certainly so regular folks can see it, read it, and are not intimidated by the length. Specific language (even non-exclusive language) both invites people to try and skirt the specific language (while ignoring the “but not limited to” clause) and would lengthen the document in a way that undermines part of its purpose.
So, for myself, I can go either way on that - I always like having more information and examples, but I don’t think they are so important that I would be upset if Wizards put other considerations above that type of clarification.
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.
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.
Please do not contact or message me.
I really, really wish I could share this sentiment. But I can’t, because it is fiction. Unfortunately, bigotry is really common in the D&D community, as it is with most nerd fandoms. I get that you have only really been active on the forums for this issue, but those of us who have been here longer have seen scores of objectively bigoted posts, hate speech, slurs, and worse. Those of us who have been active in various Discords know that there is a cancer of hate eating away at certain parts of the game, with that hate having taken root decades ago.
You’ll find plenty of users on this forum (I will not out them—it’s not my place to) who have directly experienced prejudice by other members of the community.
It is a problem, and the fact that it hasn’t been a problem under 1.0 is nothing short of miraculous. And, with the game growing ever more popular, the world growing ever more polarised, and a new edition coming out offering a fresh start, now is the time to stop counting on miracles and start taking actual action.
Again, it’s not some reporting system where anyone with bad intentions and/or too much time on their hands can run around flagging people; unless WotC personally decides they need to take action, nothing will happen. It is true I cannot categorically rule out the possibility that they’ll decide to go overboard, but the same thing can be said for any other moderated forum. This is not some unique or unprecedented idea, it’s just that right now we’ve got a bunch of people insisting WotC has nothing but bad intentions even to their own detriment that creates illusion that this is something new and risky.
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.
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.,
Please do not contact or message me.