What WotC probably didn’t anticipate was that 1500+ publishers in content providers signed onto the ORC license. I suspect strongly that there will be a foundation to ensure the rights of ORC are not infringed. (In other words, the bigger companies are going to pool their resources, if need be, to prevent anything WotC is doing from causing them financial harm).
This goes back to the same problem that we’ve had since day one. Hasbro is so focused on future monetization they’re losing sight of the fact that the very community they want to monetize is rejecting them. Until they recognize this, they are hurting themselves more than us. If their endgame was controlling the market, they’re already lost as it is looking like it will be massively fractured and outright hostile to their interests.
It is inevitable that they eventually back down. What is not certain is if they do it now or in a couple of years when they release 7.0 under ORC.
I cancelled my Master-level sub in protest of the sneaky way they were doing things, but there was no impact to me from the changes. (If you weren't publishing, OGL doesn't mean diddly. This actually impacted hardly any players.)
Now they're doing proper consultation, monetization is gone, license-back is gone, core rules will be creative commons... that's a lot of concessions. What little impact 1.1 would have had, 1.2 has none at all.
Now, after those changes, we're seeing the disingenuous actors who were actually just in this to hurl mud at WotC for being too woke, or wanted people to try their pet game, or were publishing their own content and didn't want royalties cutting into the bottom line. I never thought they'd drop revenue sharing completely or put rules into Creative Commons to put creator's minds at rest.
Anyone who wants to make something can just use the Creative Commons stuff and avoid the OGL if they want: "But CC doesn't cover everything in the SRD?!" So? I thought you were making valuable new content for 5e? What kind of low-rent, Wish version of 5e are you making if it falls apart because you can't reprint what a 5e elf is? Make your own freaking classes, monsters and spells.
Look... I'll do one for you: Bear-owl. Bam. Nailed it
As far as I'm concerned 1.2 is a total win. And now that's happened I have zero issue going back to a service I love
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I Cancelled my Master Tier Subscription January 12th 2023 because of "OGL" 1.1 - Resubscribed 28th of Jan, now the SRD is in CC-BY-4.0
I cancelled my Master-level sub in protest of the sneaky way they were doing things, but there was no impact to me from the changes. (If you weren't publishing, OGL doesn't mean diddly. This actually impacted hardly any players.)
Now they're doing proper consultation, monetization is gone, license-back is gone, core rules will be creative commons... that's a lot of concessions. What little impact 1.1 would have had, 1.2 has none at all.
Now, after those changes, we're seeing the disingenuous actors who were actually just in this to hurl mud at WotC for being too woke, or wanted people to try their pet game, or were publishing their own content and didn't want royalties cutting into the bottom line. I never thought they'd drop revenue sharing completely or put rules into Creative Commons to put creator's minds at rest.
Anyone who wants to make something can just use the Creative Commons stuff and avoid the OGL if they want: "But CC doesn't cover everything in the SRD?!" So? I thought you were making valuable new content for 5e? What kind of low-rent, Wish version of 5e are you making if it falls apart because you can't reprint what a 5e elf is? Make your own freaking classes, monsters and spells.
Look... I'll do one for you: Bear-owl. Bam. Nailed it
As far as I'm concerned 1.2 is a total win. And now that's happened I have zero issue going back to a service I love
Did you by any chance read Foundry VTTs take on it? 1.2 is a step forward, but 'total win' is a stretch.
Its full of holes, introduces massive new restrictions on what the OGL can be used for (no videogames, it purports to gut VTTs), and flies in the face of 20 years of promises from WotC (see also, the FAQ entries they buried that promised 1.0a would always be an option in the case the OGL was updated, and that software/games/electronic options were just fine).
1.2 can literally be obliterated by Wizards themselves trying to push an unenforceable clause in court, having it ruled unenforceable, and trashing the license.
In addition to having nearly unlimited power to kill anyone they don't likes license.
We are a long way from an acceptable document - I encourage you to do more reading.
I cancelled my Master-level sub in protest of the sneaky way they were doing things, but there was no impact to me from the changes. (If you weren't publishing, OGL doesn't mean diddly. This actually impacted hardly any players.)
Now they're doing proper consultation, monetization is gone, license-back is gone, core rules will be creative commons... that's a lot of concessions. What little impact 1.1 would have had, 1.2 has none at all.
Now, after those changes, we're seeing the disingenuous actors who were actually just in this to hurl mud at WotC for being too woke, or wanted people to try their pet game, or were publishing their own content and didn't want royalties cutting into the bottom line. I never thought they'd drop revenue sharing completely or put rules into Creative Commons to put creator's minds at rest.
Anyone who wants to make something can just use the Creative Commons stuff and avoid the OGL if they want: "But CC doesn't cover everything in the SRD?!" So? I thought you were making valuable new content for 5e? What kind of low-rent, Wish version of 5e are you making if it falls apart because you can't reprint what a 5e elf is? Make your own freaking classes, monsters and spells.
Look... I'll do one for you: Bear-owl. Bam. Nailed it
As far as I'm concerned 1.2 is a total win. And now that's happened I have zero issue going back to a service I love
What about 3.0/3.5/OSR. All of which were under ogl 1.0a. What about d20 modern (ogl 1.0a). None of which are under 1.2. All of which wotc would like to eliminate as they are perceivably competition.
What about the changes to the VTT policy (OGL 1.0a let them do whatever they wanted)? Why does WotC get to dictate software development based on an unclear policy of “can you do it at your table” (technically vision enforcement is a vtt thing that’s difficult but doable at the table for a less silly example than animations)
1.2 fixed royalties and claw back. It didn’t fix the rest of the toxic garbage they wanted to add. And it still deauthorizes 1.0a which is likely not something WotC can even do.
○ First and foremost, deauthorizing the OGL 1.0(a) is an egregious move on your part. My favorite system is still 3.5 and i don't want the ability to make/purchase new 3.5 material to vanish into the ether.
○ You made such a big deal about using the word "Irrevocable" yet give so many ways it can be revoked. Some examples of how. 1) What happens if you release a new SRD under another license? 2) You can revoke the ability to publish new material by creating OGL 1.3 because only content licensed under this license can never be withdrawn from the license, key words "this license" . 3) The ability to change section 5 at any point gives you too much power. 4) You can claim that something is illegal in china even though it's not illegal in the united states and rip away the license.
○ Section 3 is far too ambiguous and just feels like yet another attempt to steal content creators work.
○ Section 6(e): This is too vague, because what is illegal in one part of the world is not illegal in other parts of the words, so if you include ANYTHING illegal anywhere in the product, even if you are unaware that it is illegal in other parts of the world.
○ Section 6(f) Having the sole right to decide what conduct is hateful is far much power. What if i say that your Hadozee scandal is hateful? I wouldn't be able to contest it in a court of law even if i wanted to and you force me to waive all my rights to argue against your decision about something you say i did being hateful. This cannot stand as it is written, it must be changed.
○ Section 7. As stated before, giving you the ability to alter section 5 at any point whenever you want gives you too much power to pull the rug out under our feet after signing the OGL. Why put this in twice?
○ Section 9(b) I love this, i am so glad you included this. However, i would like to bring up something. Where is the section expressly included in the license stating that there is no royalty payment, no financial reporting, or no license-back agreements.
Now onto the Virtual Tabletop Policy. I agree that we should engage in thoughtful feedback about new emerging technologies such as VTT's but what even is this? It looks more like a FAQ page. My main concern however, is the following:
○ Not being able make animations in your VTT content? There are already plenty of VTT's that do just this. Foundry VTT, TaleSpire, Alchemy, you name it. More and more VTT's are adding this every day. This just sounds like you getting mad because you didn't develop it first and feels petty. Also "If you replace your imagination with an animation" is just silly, I already do that, it's called the "Deck of Many Animated Spells".
TLDR; This needs to be reworked before it even close to being acceptable.
This is what i wrote to the survey. Was it too much? Did i miss the major points? Was it not enough? Thoughtful feedback is always welcome.
○ Section 6(e): This is too vague, because what is illegal in one part of the world is not illegal in other parts of the words, so if you include ANYTHING illegal anywhere in the product, even if you are unaware that it is illegal in other parts of the world.
This is what I wrote to the survey. Was it too much? Did I miss the major points? Was it not enough? Thoughtful feedback is always welcome.
It is highly unlikely that this will be taken as a good faith argument. There are only two location that will matter, where you are doing business and where WotC is (Washington, per the OGL) doing business. To state that anyone is worried about the laws in other places is nonsense. In Thailand, it is illegal to defame or insult the monarch of Thailand (king, queen, heir-apparent, heir-presumptive, or regent). Guess what people in every country that isn't Thailand are free to do whenever they want... and absolutely nothing happens to them when they do it. Write all the "The King of Thailand is a silly doodoo head of a person, and I fart in his general direction" books you want, except in Thailand, and the clause will never come into effect because you are not publishing the book in Thailand.
It really is that simple, and everyone working in good faith to improve the 1.2 OGL recognizes that.
High level: Differentiate your business by giving the community better tools, simple easy to use and open platforms, and great content. Don't differentiate your business by lawyering up.
Now for the nitty gritty:
Don't attempt to deauthorize OGL 1.0a. I can't accept that and will move to Pathfinder if you do this. May you fail in court.
Don't limit what irrevocable means in OGL 1.2. The license should not be able to be withdrawn.
Don't place creators works at risk of de-licensing via a star chamber moral court at WOTC that no creator can contest.
Don't make the contract one-sided. Don't immediately cancel a license if a creator sues you. Don't force creators to waive a jury trial.
Don't give WotC the power to void the entire license if a part of it is determined to be unenforceable.
Don't force creators out of any joint action against WOTC.
Make it clear that any SRD 5.1 or any future SRD is licensable under OGL 1.2.
Don't hold creators to the high standard of proving that WotC knowingly and intentionally copied work. WotC would still enjoy the lower standard of normal copyright law. Give that same standard to Creators and do not force them to waive it.
Do not attempt to force VTTs to exclude magic spell animations. This prohibition is ridiculous and displays a lack of confidence in DND Beyond VTT.
I understand their plight...they need to update the OGL to include new developments in technology and the sort. They have to make sure their product is not used in an abusive manner.
To do this, I don't see how they cannot deauthorize OGL1.0a. But...the new OGL can and should include most of the freedoms that the old one provided. I get that some things will need to adapt to the modern age and that they are also trying to account for the future. It cannot be easy to do this.
I would change the no animation clause...I understand that it is hard to draw the line between video game and tabletop once you add animation...that's why I do not include a lot of animation in my games. But I do like things like campfires to be animated...or snow, or fog. Perhaps the solution is to attach a percentage to the amount of animation?
I 100% agree with this. Having an impartial 3rd party helps WotC to maintain the sprit of this without allowing them to just make the decision of "we don't like your work so it is hateful and you can't challenge that."
This is what i wrote to the survey. Was it too much? Did i miss the major points? Was it not enough? Thoughtful feedback is always welcome.
I understand a lot of your concerns, but deauthorizing 1.0a won't kill 3.5 content. They've said very clearly that they're planning to release older SRDs under 1.2, and they were almost certainly referring to the v3.5 SRD in that; heck, it could even extend to making a OSRIC-specific SRD.
High level: Differentiate your business by giving the community better tools, simple easy to use and open platforms, and great content. Don't differentiate your business by lawyering up.
Now for the nitty gritty:
Don't attempt to deauthorize OGL 1.0a. I can't accept that and will move to Pathfinder if you do this. May you fail in court.
Don't limit what irrevocable means in OGL 1.2. The license should not be able to be withdrawn.
Don't place creators works at risk of de-licensing via a star chamber moral court at WOTC that no creator can contest.
Don't make the contract one-sided. Don't immediately cancel a license if a creator sues you. Don't force creators to waive a jury trial.
Don't give WotC the power to void the entire license if a part of it is determined to be unenforceable.
Don't force creators out of any joint action against WOTC.
Make it clear that any SRD 5.1 or any future SRD is licensable under OGL 1.2.
Don't hold creators to the high standard of proving that WotC knowingly and intentionally copied work. WotC would still enjoy the lower standard of normal copyright law. Give that same standard to Creators and do not force them to waive it.
Do not attempt to force VTTs to exclude magic spell animations. This prohibition is ridiculous and displays a lack of confidence in DND Beyond VTT.
I think all but one of these points are acceptable except this one:
Make it clear that any SRD 5.1 or any future SRD is licensable under OGL 1.2.
Instead Make it clear that all of SRD 5.1 and previous SRD versions are under the Creative Commons BY 4.0 License. Any future SRD's can fall under whatever licenses they wish to 'draft'.
This is what i wrote to the survey. Was it too much? Did i miss the major points? Was it not enough? Thoughtful feedback is always welcome.
I understand a lot of your concerns, but deauthorizing 1.0a won't kill 3.5 content. They've said very clearly that they're planning to release older SRDs under 1.2, and they were almost certainly referring to the v3.5 SRD in that; heck, it could even extend to making a OSRIC-specific SRD.
Actually they have only talked about SRD 5.1 I expect SRD 3.5 to be fully licensed under CC. That would respect the spirit of OGL 1.0a. And so I specified it in the survey, since nothing was said about SRD 3.5 in OGL 1.2
Instead Make it clear that all of SRD 5.1 and previous SRD versions are under the Creative Commons BY 4.0 License. Any future SRD's can fall under whatever licenses they wish to 'draft'.
Why would they do that? Both SRDs include stuff that is their expression, not public domain.
I expect SRD 3.5 to be fully licensed under CC. That would respect the spirit of OGL 1.0a. And so I specified it in the survey, since nothing was said about SRD 3.5 in OGL 1.2
They'll have to actually say; so far they've been entirely silent about what any of this means for older SRDs. I expect they'll either try to withdraw the older SRDs entirely (which would make another ruckus, so they may be leery of doing so) or just leave them with no changes.
Instead Make it clear that all of SRD 5.1 and previous SRD versions are under the Creative Commons BY 4.0 License. Any future SRD's can fall under whatever licenses they wish to 'draft'.
Why would they do that? Both SRDs include stuff that is their expression, not public domain.
There really are many reasons to do that. Especially commercial, since it fills your line with content and adds value to your product. This happened in 3e, when D&D was practically dead. And it happened again in 5e, when D&D was no longer the most played role-playing game (Directly, of course. Indirectly, yes, through Pathfinder).
Why did WoTC include SRD 5.1 in the OGL, and not in a more restrictive license like it did with 4e? Because they knew that third-party stuff (and, obviously, some good fun rules) is what could get their product off the ground. And it worked.
Anyway, I really think that fans can't demand that they include SRD 5.1 fully in CC. We can ask for it, but they have no moral obligation to do so. It's purely their business decision.
A different case is SRD 3.5 if OGL 1.0a is deprecated.
Instead Make it clear that all of SRD 5.1 and previous SRD versions are under the Creative Commons BY 4.0 License. Any future SRD's can fall under whatever licenses they wish to 'draft'.
Why would they do that? Both SRDs include stuff that is their expression, not public domain.
Because it would serve as a massive offer of goodwill toward rebuilding community trust IMO, and allow whatever future they wish to pursue to proceed in a way most would fine with.
I remember a few years ago, wizards had the 2014 edition of the PHB available for free as a PDF download on their site. The single most needed book the player-base requires, given out for free. The SRD's are but a fraction of that expression, published under their own 1.0/a license and in the 'public domain' for 6 years.( or longer depending on version)
Stem the bleeding, offer the sacrifice of the past to enable the growth of the future.
Instead Make it clear that all of SRD 5.1 and previous SRD versions are under the Creative Commons BY 4.0 License. Any future SRD's can fall under whatever licenses they wish to 'draft'.
Why would they do that? Both SRDs include stuff that is their expression, not public domain.
There really are many reasons to do that. Especially commercial, since it fills your line with content and adds value to your product. This happened in 3e, when D&D was practically dead. And it happened again in 5e, when D&D was no longer the most played role-playing game (Directly, of course. Indirectly, yes, through Pathfinder).
Why did WoTC include SRD 5.1 in the OGL, and not in a more restrictive license like it did with 4e? Because they knew that third-party stuff (and, obviously, some good fun rules) is what could get their product off the ground. And it worked.
Anyway, I really think that fans can't demand that they include SRD 5.1 fully in CC. We can ask for it, but they have no moral obligation to do so. It's purely their business decision.
A different case is SRD 3.5 if OGL 1.0a is deprecated.
Even in 3e, the SRD contained items that were still their expression / protected IP and it didn't stifle creativity at all. There is zero reason for them to relinquish that now.
SRD 3.5 will make it to 1.2 eventually. Their initial focus is 5.1 (and whichever number the inevitable 1DnD SRD gets), as it should be.
Instead Make it clear that all of SRD 5.1 and previous SRD versions are under the Creative Commons BY 4.0 License. Any future SRD's can fall under whatever licenses they wish to 'draft'.
Why would they do that? Both SRDs include stuff that is their expression, not public domain.
Because it would serve as a massive offer of goodwill toward rebuilding community trust IMO, and allow whatever future they wish to pursue to proceed in a way most would fine with.
I remember a few years ago, wizards had the 2014 edition of the PHB available for free as a PDF download on their site. The single most needed book the player-base requires, given out for free. The SRD's are but a fraction of that expression, published under their own 1.0/a license and in the 'public domain' for 6 years.( or longer depending on version)
Stem the bleeding, offer the sacrifice of the past to enable the growth of the future.
Goodwill towards the folks who have already committed to jumping ship for ORC seems like wasted effort. For those who have not, CCing all their protected expression in the base ruleset is overkill.
Well, my constructive suggestion is that they don't deprecate OGL 1.0a. It's the only thing that can stop the bleeding IMO.
Thats not constructive. One thing that has not changed for Wizards in this whole process is that they intend to stop using 1.0. Giving feedback for 1.2 saying "dont undo 1.0" is like if someone on this forum was looking for constructive feedback on how to make a Fighter that's sneaky and someone said "the only way to do that is dont make a Fighter, make a Rogue." Its not helping with constructing on what has been put forward, just looking to reverse the choice altogether.
Let me be clear, theres no problem with you wanting OGL 1.0a to stay in effect and there is a place and voice for that opinion. There are already metric tons of threads with that idea being supported and repeated to hopefully get WotC attention. This thread, however, is aiming to try and help build up the proposed 1.2 into something worthwhile, not revert back to 1.0a
Well, my constructive suggestion is that they don't deprecate OGL 1.0a. It's the only thing that can stop the bleeding IMO.
Thats not constructive. One thing that has not changed for Wizards in this whole process is that they intend to stop using 1.0. Giving feedback for 1.2 saying "dont undo 1.0" is like if someone on this forum was looking for constructive feedback on how to make a Fighter that's sneaky and someone said "the only way to do that is dont make a Fighter, make a Rogue." Its not helping with constructing on what has been put forward, just looking to reverse the choice altogether.
Let me be clear, theres no problem with you wanting OGL 1.0a to stay in effect and there is a place and voice for that opinion. There are already metric tons of threads with that idea being supported and repeated to hopefully get WotC attention. This thread, however, is aiming to try and help build up the proposed 1.2 into something worthwhile, not revert back to 1.0a
Yes. It is right. Im glad that the voices of those who wanted 1.0a to stay in place were heard, but that doesnt change the fact that 1.0a was not the subject of this thread. The OP was looking for construction on 1.2 in their post, not for 1.0a knowledge. Anything that Wizards decides to do with 1.0a is not relevant or constructive to this thread.
Ill admit I was clearly wrong about "Wizard's intentions." That much is apparent. But that does not change this thread or its focus on suggestions for improving 1.2
What WotC probably didn’t anticipate was that 1500+ publishers in content providers signed onto the ORC license. I suspect strongly that there will be a foundation to ensure the rights of ORC are not infringed. (In other words, the bigger companies are going to pool their resources, if need be, to prevent anything WotC is doing from causing them financial harm).
This goes back to the same problem that we’ve had since day one. Hasbro is so focused on future monetization they’re losing sight of the fact that the very community they want to monetize is rejecting them. Until they recognize this, they are hurting themselves more than us. If their endgame was controlling the market, they’re already lost as it is looking like it will be massively fractured and outright hostile to their interests.
It is inevitable that they eventually back down. What is not certain is if they do it now or in a couple of years when they release 7.0 under ORC.
I Cancelled my Master Tier Subscription January 12th 2023 because of "OGL" 1.1 - Resubscribed 28th of Jan, now the SRD is in CC-BY-4.0
Did you by any chance read Foundry VTTs take on it? 1.2 is a step forward, but 'total win' is a stretch.
Its full of holes, introduces massive new restrictions on what the OGL can be used for (no videogames, it purports to gut VTTs), and flies in the face of 20 years of promises from WotC (see also, the FAQ entries they buried that promised 1.0a would always be an option in the case the OGL was updated, and that software/games/electronic options were just fine).
1.2 can literally be obliterated by Wizards themselves trying to push an unenforceable clause in court, having it ruled unenforceable, and trashing the license.
In addition to having nearly unlimited power to kill anyone they don't likes license.
We are a long way from an acceptable document - I encourage you to do more reading.
What about 3.0/3.5/OSR. All of which were under ogl 1.0a. What about d20 modern (ogl 1.0a). None of which are under 1.2. All of which wotc would like to eliminate as they are perceivably competition.
What about the changes to the VTT policy (OGL 1.0a let them do whatever they wanted)? Why does WotC get to dictate software development based on an unclear policy of “can you do it at your table” (technically vision enforcement is a vtt thing that’s difficult but doable at the table for a less silly example than animations)
1.2 fixed royalties and claw back. It didn’t fix the rest of the toxic garbage they wanted to add. And it still deauthorizes 1.0a which is likely not something WotC can even do.
This is what i wrote to the survey. Was it too much? Did i miss the major points? Was it not enough? Thoughtful feedback is always welcome.
as a certified wotc anti-shill. Seems good to me. I don’t know how much they’ll end up reading but it’s well reasoned.
It is highly unlikely that this will be taken as a good faith argument. There are only two location that will matter, where you are doing business and where WotC is (Washington, per the OGL) doing business. To state that anyone is worried about the laws in other places is nonsense. In Thailand, it is illegal to defame or insult the monarch of Thailand (king, queen, heir-apparent, heir-presumptive, or regent). Guess what people in every country that isn't Thailand are free to do whenever they want... and absolutely nothing happens to them when they do it. Write all the "The King of Thailand is a silly doodoo head of a person, and I fart in his general direction" books you want, except in Thailand, and the clause will never come into effect because you are not publishing the book in Thailand.
It really is that simple, and everyone working in good faith to improve the 1.2 OGL recognizes that.
High level: Differentiate your business by giving the community better tools, simple easy to use and open platforms, and great content. Don't differentiate your business by lawyering up.
Now for the nitty gritty:
I understand their plight...they need to update the OGL to include new developments in technology and the sort. They have to make sure their product is not used in an abusive manner.
To do this, I don't see how they cannot deauthorize OGL1.0a. But...the new OGL can and should include most of the freedoms that the old one provided. I get that some things will need to adapt to the modern age and that they are also trying to account for the future. It cannot be easy to do this.
I would change the no animation clause...I understand that it is hard to draw the line between video game and tabletop once you add animation...that's why I do not include a lot of animation in my games. But I do like things like campfires to be animated...or snow, or fog. Perhaps the solution is to attach a percentage to the amount of animation?
(Example: No more than 20% animation)
Check us out on Twitch, YouTube and the DISCORD!
I 100% agree with this. Having an impartial 3rd party helps WotC to maintain the sprit of this without allowing them to just make the decision of "we don't like your work so it is hateful and you can't challenge that."
I understand a lot of your concerns, but deauthorizing 1.0a won't kill 3.5 content. They've said very clearly that they're planning to release older SRDs under 1.2, and they were almost certainly referring to the v3.5 SRD in that; heck, it could even extend to making a OSRIC-specific SRD.
I think all but one of these points are acceptable except this one:
Instead Make it clear that all of SRD 5.1 and previous SRD versions are under the Creative Commons BY 4.0 License. Any future SRD's can fall under whatever licenses they wish to 'draft'.
Actually they have only talked about SRD 5.1
I expect SRD 3.5 to be fully licensed under CC. That would respect the spirit of OGL 1.0a.
And so I specified it in the survey, since nothing was said about SRD 3.5 in OGL 1.2
Why would they do that? Both SRDs include stuff that is their expression, not public domain.
They'll have to actually say; so far they've been entirely silent about what any of this means for older SRDs. I expect they'll either try to withdraw the older SRDs entirely (which would make another ruckus, so they may be leery of doing so) or just leave them with no changes.
There really are many reasons to do that. Especially commercial, since it fills your line with content and adds value to your product. This happened in 3e, when D&D was practically dead. And it happened again in 5e, when D&D was no longer the most played role-playing game (Directly, of course. Indirectly, yes, through Pathfinder).
Why did WoTC include SRD 5.1 in the OGL, and not in a more restrictive license like it did with 4e? Because they knew that third-party stuff (and, obviously, some good fun rules) is what could get their product off the ground. And it worked.
Anyway, I really think that fans can't demand that they include SRD 5.1 fully in CC. We can ask for it, but they have no moral obligation to do so. It's purely their business decision.
A different case is SRD 3.5 if OGL 1.0a is deprecated.
Because it would serve as a massive offer of goodwill toward rebuilding community trust IMO, and allow whatever future they wish to pursue to proceed in a way most would fine with.
I remember a few years ago, wizards had the 2014 edition of the PHB available for free as a PDF download on their site. The single most needed book the player-base requires, given out for free. The SRD's are but a fraction of that expression, published under their own 1.0/a license and in the 'public domain' for 6 years.( or longer depending on version)
Stem the bleeding, offer the sacrifice of the past to enable the growth of the future.
Even in 3e, the SRD contained items that were still their expression / protected IP and it didn't stifle creativity at all. There is zero reason for them to relinquish that now.
SRD 3.5 will make it to 1.2 eventually. Their initial focus is 5.1 (and whichever number the inevitable 1DnD SRD gets), as it should be.
Goodwill towards the folks who have already committed to jumping ship for ORC seems like wasted effort. For those who have not, CCing all their protected expression in the base ruleset is overkill.
Is that right?
Yes. It is right. Im glad that the voices of those who wanted 1.0a to stay in place were heard, but that doesnt change the fact that 1.0a was not the subject of this thread. The OP was looking for construction on 1.2 in their post, not for 1.0a knowledge. Anything that Wizards decides to do with 1.0a is not relevant or constructive to this thread.
Ill admit I was clearly wrong about "Wizard's intentions." That much is apparent. But that does not change this thread or its focus on suggestions for improving 1.2
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!