CLARIFICATION: The topic is "I smell smoke" not "Page # is the problem". Smoke was smelt, fire was found.
NOTE: To the completely fair comment that the "draft" OGL 1.1 had non-legalese comments and preamble. With those removed it is 12 page. so it only fluctuated by 6x and 4x the number of pages (and clauses). All mentioned of 15 that I can edit have been changed to 12
I'm confused how the OGL 1.1 was a "draft" 12 page document, and some how this actual draft OGL 1.2 is 3 pages.
Doesn't really matter, does it? If the result is something better, who cares? Previous draft, be it 15 or a 100 pages, is no longer relevant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Documents don't magically lose 80% of their page count between revisions in the real world.
OGL 1.0a - 2 pages
OGL 1.1 "draft" - 15 pages
OGL 1.2 draft - 3 pages
Easy explanation:
A) They stated they were removing a lot of provisions.
B) They also removed a lot of explanatory FAQ material.
Calling a lower page count "sus" is outrage looking for a target. If you are actually interested in a supporting the OGL 3PP's, please do better. This only hurts their efforts.
What I find extremely frustrating is that WotC is trying to claim animations for VTT's. Really? Foundry and the like were in the space far before WotC even thought of entering the sense.
On page 6 under What is permitted under this policy?
"What isn’t permitted are features that don’t replicate your dining room table storytelling. If you replace your imagination with an animation of the Magic Missile streaking across the board to strike your target, or your VTT integrates our content into an NFT, that’s not the tabletop experience. That’s more like a video game."
What I find extremely frustrating is that WotC is trying to claim animations for VTT's. Really? Foundry and the like were in the space far before WotC even thought of entering the sense.
On page 6 under What is permitted under this policy?
"What isn’t permitted are features that don’t replicate your dining room table storytelling. If you replace your imagination with an animation of the Magic Missile streaking across the board to strike your target, or your VTT integrates our content into an NFT, that’s not the tabletop experience. That’s more like a video game."
Also, less pages, the better.
I don't think they're claiming that animations for spells are owned by WotC. I think they're claiming that a VTT that includes these types of things makes it too similar to a video game, and hence shouldn't be licensed under the OGL (and the new VTT Policy). It would have to be licensed separately (however they license video games).
Personally, I don't think that a magic missile animation turns a VTT into a video game. I can sort of see why they need to draw the line somewhere, but this feels a bit off (and way different from something like NFTs which it mentions in the same sentence).
Let me guess -- if the page count had doubled, that would also have been super sus
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Let me guess -- if the page count had doubled, that would also have been super sus
Absolutely. I don't see why I'm getting so much push back on this. Massive additions or removals of clauses should raise massive alarm bells for everyone in any document. If your employment contract renewal quintuples in size over a year, absolutely call a lawyer to review it with you before signing.
This is a great step forward that they're now clearly editing 1.0a -> 1.2, but it is also further evidence that the 1.1 "draft" was not a draft which they continue to gloss over.
Let me guess -- if the page count had doubled, that would also have been super sus
Absolutely. I don't see why I'm getting so much push back on this. Massive additions or removals of clauses should raise massive alarm bells for everyone in any document. If your employment contract renewal quintuples in size over a year, absolutely call a lawyer to review it with you before signing.
This is a great step forward that they're now clearly editing 1.0a -> 1.2, but it is also further evidence that the 1.1 "draft" was not a draft which they continue to gloss over.
Page length can change by something as simple as changing font or text size...this is not the argument you think it is. Read the content, not the number of pages.
It doesn't matter how much they added or removed for the new OGL draft. All that matters is what it actually says.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Documents don't magically lose 80% of their page count between revisions in the real world.
OGL 1.0a - 2 pages
OGL 1.1 "draft" - 15 pages
OGL 1.2 draft - 3 pages
Easy explanation:
A) They stated they were removing a lot of provisions.
B) They also removed a lot of explanatory FAQ material.
Calling a lower page count "sus" is outrage looking for a target. If you are actually interested in a supporting the OGL 3PP's, please do better. This only hurts their efforts.
Thank you for pointing that out. As now noted in the first post, I removed the preamble and comments, so it only fluctuated by up by 6x, and then down by 4x.
I still maintain that this absolutely does not happen in the course of normal document revision and should be viewed with extreme suspicion.
In my opinion we should look for a way to work with WotC. In some of the youtube videos out there I get the feeling, that people just want to burn the whole thing to the ground because of how betrayed they feel and - sorry - that is not helpful either. The new OGL 1.2 still isn't OGL 1.0a and I am not sure if we will ever get that back. From what I've read so far, there should be additional changes made and we should advocate and fight for those changes, but the new licence is not "outrageous". It is not a spit in the face like the 1.1 "draft". Maybe it's just me, because I still somehow have the unrealistic hope to "fix" this whole mess, but us "rioting" should have a purpose and that has to be achieving a licence in the end, that works for players and third party content creators. If you have made your choice that you will never work with WotC again or can never trust them again, there sadly is no future for you with D&D as a brand, because WotC will not just go away. Making that choice is totally fine, but if you want to remain part of this whole OGL discussion and the future of the game, you should do so in good faith.
That being said it is not sus that the OGL 1.2 has less pages ;)
It doesn't matter how much they added or removed for the new OGL draft. All that matters is what it actually says.
I agree that the final language is all that matters when your ink hits paper. The first post is "Hey, I smell smoke" and we're digging into it.
Smoke like: 1(b) Works Covered. This license only applies to printed media and static electronic files (such as epubs or pdfs) you create for use in or as tabletop roleplaying games and supplements (“TTRPGs”) and in virtual tabletops in accordance with our Virtual Tabletop Policy (“VTTs”).
That link goes nowhere. They are hiding another several pages in some other document.
The FAQ on page six (@StarGaze) says that VTTs can't animate a magic missile. Well that already exists on some VTTs. I agree that they should not be able to copy WotC's animation of a magic missile, but now they're not allowed to create one themselves? What about fireball? Does WotC now own all generic explosion animations? That's madness.
What is I make a flipbook of a magic missile for my table? Am I allowed to use that animation in VTT now?
I appreciate that it has the heading of "Policy", but that is an FAQ, not a policy.
And lets say that is was a policy. That means that 1(b) in the OGL points to an entirely fluid document that WotC can change at any time to say anything.
“We want a bunch of things removed, we want it to be written in English, not legalese, and we want it to be streamlined and easy to read without a bunch of explanatory language.”
*gets document with the objected to terms removed, gets it written in a concise manner that a layperson could easily understand (including with parentheticals explaining some of the legal terms)*
CLARIFICATION: The topic is "I smell smoke" not "Page # is the problem". Smoke was smelt, fire was found.
NOTE: To the completely fair comment that the "draft" OGL 1.1 had non-legalese comments and preamble. With those removed it is 12 page. so it only fluctuated by 6x and 4x the number of pages (and clauses). All mentioned of 15 that I can edit have been changed to 12
I'm confused how the OGL 1.1 was a "draft" 12 page document, and some how this actual draft OGL 1.2 is 3 pages.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest
Documents don't magically lose 75% of their page count between revisions in the real world.
They do if you have a good editor.
Not in legal contracts of any kind. It's clear that they got their wrist slapped on their non-draft and just did actual edits to the 1.0a this time.
I guess that's what happens when you edit out the many things that shouldn't have been there in the first place...
Doesn't really matter, does it? If the result is something better, who cares? Previous draft, be it 15 or a 100 pages, is no longer relevant.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Yea, step one is pointing out that they obviously tossed the whole 1.1 garbage. Now digging through it.
Gotta get that Class Action Waiver in there to prevent these silly peasants from trying to organize again.
Easy explanation:
A) They stated they were removing a lot of provisions.
B) They also removed a lot of explanatory FAQ material.
Calling a lower page count "sus" is outrage looking for a target. If you are actually interested in a supporting the OGL 3PP's, please do better. This only hurts their efforts.
What I find extremely frustrating is that WotC is trying to claim animations for VTT's. Really? Foundry and the like were in the space far before WotC even thought of entering the sense.
On page 6 under What is permitted under this policy?
Also, less pages, the better.
I don't think they're claiming that animations for spells are owned by WotC. I think they're claiming that a VTT that includes these types of things makes it too similar to a video game, and hence shouldn't be licensed under the OGL (and the new VTT Policy). It would have to be licensed separately (however they license video games).
Personally, I don't think that a magic missile animation turns a VTT into a video game. I can sort of see why they need to draw the line somewhere, but this feels a bit off (and way different from something like NFTs which it mentions in the same sentence).
Let me guess -- if the page count had doubled, that would also have been super sus
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Absolutely. I don't see why I'm getting so much push back on this. Massive additions or removals of clauses should raise massive alarm bells for everyone in any document. If your employment contract renewal quintuples in size over a year, absolutely call a lawyer to review it with you before signing.
This is a great step forward that they're now clearly editing 1.0a -> 1.2, but it is also further evidence that the 1.1 "draft" was not a draft which they continue to gloss over.
Page length can change by something as simple as changing font or text size...this is not the argument you think it is. Read the content, not the number of pages.
What 1.1 was is irrelevant, it no longer applies.
It doesn't matter how much they added or removed for the new OGL draft. All that matters is what it actually says.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Thank you for pointing that out. As now noted in the first post, I removed the preamble and comments, so it only fluctuated by up by 6x, and then down by 4x.
I still maintain that this absolutely does not happen in the course of normal document revision and should be viewed with extreme suspicion.
In my opinion we should look for a way to work with WotC. In some of the youtube videos out there I get the feeling, that people just want to burn the whole thing to the ground because of how betrayed they feel and - sorry - that is not helpful either.
The new OGL 1.2 still isn't OGL 1.0a and I am not sure if we will ever get that back. From what I've read so far, there should be additional changes made and we should advocate and fight for those changes, but the new licence is not "outrageous". It is not a spit in the face like the 1.1 "draft".
Maybe it's just me, because I still somehow have the unrealistic hope to "fix" this whole mess, but us "rioting" should have a purpose and that has to be achieving a licence in the end, that works for players and third party content creators. If you have made your choice that you will never work with WotC again or can never trust them again, there sadly is no future for you with D&D as a brand, because WotC will not just go away. Making that choice is totally fine, but if you want to remain part of this whole OGL discussion and the future of the game, you should do so in good faith.
That being said it is not sus that the OGL 1.2 has less pages ;)
I agree that the final language is all that matters when your ink hits paper. The first post is "Hey, I smell smoke" and we're digging into it.
Smoke like:
1(b) Works Covered. This license only applies to printed media and static electronic files (such as epubs or pdfs) you create for use in or as tabletop roleplaying games and supplements (“TTRPGs”) and in virtual tabletops in accordance with our Virtual Tabletop Policy (“VTTs”).
That link goes nowhere. They are hiding another several pages in some other document.
The FAQ on page six (@StarGaze) says that VTTs can't animate a magic missile. Well that already exists on some VTTs. I agree that they should not be able to copy WotC's animation of a magic missile, but now they're not allowed to create one themselves? What about fireball? Does WotC now own all generic explosion animations? That's madness.
What is I make a flipbook of a magic missile for my table? Am I allowed to use that animation in VTT now?
The version I saw had the VTT policy directly below the main OGL text...again, not sus
I appreciate that it has the heading of "Policy", but that is an FAQ, not a policy.
And lets say that is was a policy. That means that 1(b) in the OGL points to an entirely fluid document that WotC can change at any time to say anything.
“We want a bunch of things removed, we want it to be written in English, not legalese, and we want it to be streamlined and easy to read without a bunch of explanatory language.”
*gets document with the objected to terms removed, gets it written in a concise manner that a layperson could easily understand (including with parentheticals explaining some of the legal terms)*
*wonders why the document is so much shorter*
*investigates why the documents is so much shorter along with other people on the forum*
*finds giant loophole*