Censorship is always bad, it is not an opinion, it is a fact.
It is a tool that is used for evil, often under the guise of "protecting good". Your example is no more relevant than saying one can ask another to leave one own's house (unless you live in California). The marketplace will determine what is acceptable or not. Using SUBJECTIVE ideals to determine the OBJECTIVE existence of art is a very slippery slope. It would put every publisher, including WotC in a catch 20 situation. Produce a product which has a "straight" character in it, could be deemed as "hateful, harmful, or discriminatory" as much as one which has a LGTBQ+ character by victim minded people. In fact if 6(f) remains in place, WotC will get sued on ANY content it produces, using its own language to support the basis for whatever victim minded portion of the populace who chooses to take offense and be "harmed" by words.
It's ok though, it worked for almost a decade for the National Socialist Workers Party before change came, it is always interesting to see people who are so concerned about having freedom are willing to do so at the cost of liberty for any they disagree with, or find "harmful".
So, if you spent a campaign session, say, swearing at the DM and/or other players, not just in character, but out of character, the DM would be bad for asking you to leave the campaign?
I am also suspecting that you do not realize that said political party was actually democratically elected on a platform of hate rhetoric against foreigners and communists, or even how openly anti-Semitic newspaper headlines often were in the UK and US in the 20's and 30's.
Censorship is a difficult necessity that should not be allowed to be done by a corporation without recurse. Certainly there must not be waiving appeal. This is not about getting (temporarily? silenced) on a forum, but about losing the license and having to destroy your stockpile and being unable to produce. Is that not within the cards? Maybe not now. Maybe I trust the current staff. Maybe I trust the current executives. Maybe all in good faith. Even if that would all pass one must not have it in the contract/license as all those actors can change, for example just by selling the IP or replacing the president of WotC or CEO of Hasbro and many more.
Censorship is complex. Simple unchecked absolute corporate power is pretty much the worst approach to it there is.
Any OGL that deauthorizes 1.0a is unacceptable. If there is a new one that is better then 1.0a allows you to use it, simple. After seeing the proposed OGL that started this storm of feces, I absolutely do NOT feel that I can trust WOTC to "do the right thing" in their interpretations of what is or is not offensive or hateful. We basically caught them trying to roofie our drink, then they say "my bad, wanna go on a date?" I trust gas station sushi and a fart 4 hours later more than I do WOTC.
If they listened AT ALL (they don't) they would absolutely know without a shadow of a doubt we want 1.0a to stand. If they want a better OGL then make a better one and it will be used as 1.0a allows. It's a very simple concept and if they cared then that is the route they would take.
Say it with me: 6(f) is not censorship. It places exactly zero limitations on a third party own speech.
What it does do is place limitations on Wizards of the Coast’s own speech.
A third party is free to make the book Bigotry: A Guide to Adding Racism Back into the World’s Most Popular TTRPG if they so chose. Absolutely nothing in 1.2 stops then from publishing that book—and, provided it does not break any laws or infringe on Wizards’ IP in any way, they have every legal right to make that content.
What it does stop them from doing is including Wizards’ speech in that book. They can add a paragraph about how you can use a spell that creates a noxious cloud to genocide innocent children (as Gary Gygax intended)—they just can’t call that spell “Cloudkill.”
And that’s what those raving about censorship do not understand (or one of the things they do not understand)—a licensing deal’s usage terms are not a limitation on speech, they are a limitation on how someone else is allowed to use Wizards’ speech. Nothing prohibits anyone from being bigoted, it just also allows Wizards to say “okay, but if you are a bigot, you don’t get to use our stuff and you are only allowed to use your own stuff.”
Censorship is always bad, it is not an opinion, it is a fact.
It is a tool that is used for evil, often under the guise of "protecting good". Your example is no more relevant than saying one can ask another to leave one own's house (unless you live in California). The marketplace will determine what is acceptable or not. Using SUBJECTIVE ideals to determine the OBJECTIVE existence of art is a very slippery slope. It would put every publisher, including WotC in a catch 20 situation. Produce a product which has a "straight" character in it, could be deemed as "hateful, harmful, or discriminatory" as much as one which has a LGTBQ+ character by victim minded people. In fact if 6(f) remains in place, WotC will get sued on ANY content it produces, using its own language to support the basis for whatever victim minded portion of the populace who chooses to take offense and be "harmed" by words.
It's ok though, it worked for almost a decade for the National Socialist Workers Party before change came, it is always interesting to see people who are so concerned about having freedom are willing to do so at the cost of liberty for any they disagree with, or find "harmful".
So, if you spent a campaign session, say, swearing at the DM and/or other players, not just in character, but out of character, the DM would be bad for asking you to leave the campaign?
I am also suspecting that you do not realize that said political party was actually democratically elected on a platform of hate rhetoric against foreigners and communists, or even how openly anti-Semitic newspaper headlines often were in the UK and US in the 20's and 30's.
This absolutely has nothing to do with the OGL or what Wizards intends to do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
Say it with me: 6(f) is not censorship. It places exactly zero limitations on a third party own speech.
What it does do is place limitations on Wizards of the Coast’s own speech.
A third party is free to make the book Bigotry: A Guide to Adding Racism Back into the World’s Most Popular TTRPG if they so chose. Absolutely nothing in 1.2 stops then from publishing that book—and, provided it does not break any laws or infringe on Wizards’ IP in any way, they have every legal right to make that content.
What it does stop them from doing is including Wizards’ speech in that book. They can add a paragraph about how you can use a spell that creates a noxious cloud to genocide innocent children (as Gary Gygax intended)—they just can’t call that spell “Cloudkill.”
And that’s what those raving about censorship do not understand (or one of the things they do not understand)—a licensing deal’s usage terms are not a limitation on speech, they are a limitation on how someone else is allowed to use Wizards’ speech. Nothing prohibits anyone from being bigoted, it just also allows Wizards to say “okay, but if you are a bigot, you don’t get to use our stuff and you are only allowed to use your own stuff.”
Oh, if only if only the names of spells were Wizards' IP. Then, perhaps, there might be a shred of something relevant here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
Since you guys are generally against Wizards being able to protect their players, their IP, their employees, or anything else...let me ask you this. As a hypothetical.
Say you all got your wish, and 1.0a stayed authorized alongside 1.2 BUT!!! This came with a public, widely dispersed statement from Wizards of the Coast to the effect of:
"No More D&D"
I'm good with that, not likely to happen, as Chris Cocks wants to sink all 3rd party content, sink all VTTs, Kill DnDB and other online Databases of D&D content, and force everyone on the Official D&D VTT with it's Animations, NFTs, and aggressive over monetization. With only Collectors books being released occasionally.
So yeah by then I'll be only playing Pathfinder and other 3rd party TTRPGs and I wont spend a dime on any Hasbro inc product ever again, I will (have already) convince my very large family to do the same.
Say it with me: 6(f) is not censorship. It places exactly zero limitations on a third party own speech.
What it does do is place limitations on Wizards of the Coast’s own speech.
A third party is free to make the book Bigotry: A Guide to Adding Racism Back into the World’s Most Popular TTRPG if they so chose. Absolutely nothing in 1.2 stops then from publishing that book—and, provided it does not break any laws or infringe on Wizards’ IP in any way, they have every legal right to make that content.
What it does stop them from doing is including Wizards’ speech in that book. They can add a paragraph about how you can use a spell that creates a noxious cloud to genocide innocent children (as Gary Gygax intended)—they just can’t call that spell “Cloudkill.”
And that’s what those raving about censorship do not understand (or one of the things they do not understand)—a licensing deal’s usage terms are not a limitation on speech, they are a limitation on how someone else is allowed to use Wizards’ speech. Nothing prohibits anyone from being bigoted, it just also allows Wizards to say “okay, but if you are a bigot, you don’t get to use our stuff and you are only allowed to use your own stuff.”
Oh, if only if only the names of spells were Wizards' IP. Then, perhaps, there might be a shred of something relevant here.
Well, since plenty of things like “Cloudkill” are very clearly Wizards’ IP, I am glad you agree with me!
My question for 1.0a die-hards is what about it they even like so much. Completely disregarding the issues with the proposed new versions, if there exists a hypothetical new and objectively better license, why should anyone care about deprecating 1.0a?
That will be ORC, as it will be protected by a non-profit organization, and all the third party content creators are working to make it happen.
This question is predicated on the false belief that 1.0a is in anyway a broken license. The excuse that vile content exists is a straw-man argument. In reality very little objectionable, content exists, and that content does exist, is already publicly, called out and shamed by the vast majority of the community.
The potential issue here is not that the community will blame them, but the market at large. Hasbro and WotC presumably want to grow their market, which means reaching out to those outside of the community. given the stigma these games have faced in the past (satanic panic, racism in the game), do you think they want to have to defend themselves in perpetuity to the general market who don't know the relationships at work here?
I suspect we all know exactly what content I refer to there - and in fact that continent is the pariah in the community.
There’s nothing now that stops wizards from publicly denouncing that sort of content. They likewise they can put legitimate pressure on the market places (especially drive-through, and DM guild) voluntarily not accept that sort of content.
No, the argument that 1.0a must change to improve inclusivity or prevent hate, racism, sexism is just a smokescreen designed a mask, their desire for control over the VTT market. It’s about money, not brand. It was about brand they never would’ve brought out any licensing change.
the lack of verbiage on VTT and other modern gameplay developments is reason enough to vacate using the 1.0a by itself. Of course they want control over their IPs usage in new markets that didn't exist at the time of 1.0a's writing. Especially for a market that straddles the line between Table play (OGL covered) and video game (non-OGL covered). That, since the 1.0a cannot be effectively amended, is a crucial gap in their licensing contracts. You may not like the current policy, but it is not a sin on the part of the company for them to want to regulate the use of their IP in any media format, tabletop, VTT, or videogame/film.
Also, they absolutely can (and do) want both. they aren't hiding one behind the other here
Actually... the irony is, there was Demi-VTTs already in play in the late 90s and early 2ks, and the writers of the License were aware of it. Hell's We use to play using IRC and LiveJournal. And not long afterwards Neverwinter Knights came out with DM tools. Also there was a VTM game with Story Teller Mode. Also the 2.5 Edition of D&D came with a CD-Rom filled with the full ruleset character creator, and Animated Dice. See: https://youtu.be/mL3b0cUIWwk
Actually... the irony is, there was Demi-VTTs already in play in the late 90s and early 2ks, and the writers of the License were aware of it. Hell's We use to play using IRC and LiveJournal. And not long afterwards Neverwinter Knights came out with DM tools. Also there was a VTM game with Story Teller Mode. Also the 2.5 Edition of D&D came with a CD-Rom filled with the full ruleset character creator, and Animated Dice. See: https://youtu.be/mL3b0cUIWwk
Neverwinter Nights was Bioware but still paid licensing fees, I believe. Ditto other such games. Plus internet connectivity was not so developed as today. Should they have forseen it? Perhaps, but it wasn't that obvious.
maybe for the masses, but we were already play D&D online by 1992, ak MUDs, Text Based D&D Games were one of the first uses of the Internet. Dice Rollers were one of the first things invented for computer games. All the first generation CRPGs were based on the Table Top experience, and that was 1980. Ever wonder why Final Fantasy gets to use Mind Flayers? Because they had them in their games and copyrighted before TSR did. Obvious it was already a thin in the 80s. And most D&D players also played CRPGs, and could build their own PCs. My first VTT experience was at a comic book store in 1995 with lasers and smoke machines. (using War gaming Figures, and Wargaming set pieces.) The virtual part was the DM using light and music to recreate special effects on the table.
The Current CEO Chris Cocks never played D&D and is just trying to push everyone on his VTT to microtransaction hell the game. He doesn't understand, we D&D players invented the tech he is trying to use, we D&D players have been at this for 50 years. We sank D&D once because their went to s*** we can do it again,, it will make us sad to do so, just like last time.
F*** transphobia, racism, sexism, and homophobia, but also f*** a billion dollar company that:
- Schemes for power and control over an entire industry and an entire community
- Wants to exploit or destroy third party publishers and content creators (many of whom are BIPOC and/or LGBTQ) in order to profit shareholders
- Wants to extract the last nickel and dime from players (again, many of whom are BIPOC and/or LGBTQ) in order to profit shareholders
- Uses diversity and inclusion to shield itself from critique in its pursuit of dominance
In terms of social justice, the OGL is the commons; third party publishers, content creators, and players are the people; and Hasbro are the landlords who want to evict the people from the commons and enclose the commons for their profit and their profit alone.
In scenarios like that, white, masculine, cis-het capitalists on boards of directors and in shareholder meetings are the only people who win in the end, no matter how much they talk about diversity and inclusion.
The OGL protects third party publishers, content creators, and players, including those who are BIPOC and LGBTQ, from Hasbro.
Say it with me: 6(f) is not censorship. It places exactly zero limitations on a third party own speech.
What it does do is place limitations on Wizards of the Coast’s own speech.
A third party is free to make the book Bigotry: A Guide to Adding Racism Back into the World’s Most Popular TTRPG if they so chose. Absolutely nothing in 1.2 stops then from publishing that book—and, provided it does not break any laws or infringe on Wizards’ IP in any way, they have every legal right to make that content.
What it does stop them from doing is including Wizards’ speech in that book. They can add a paragraph about how you can use a spell that creates a noxious cloud to genocide innocent children (as Gary Gygax intended)—they just can’t call that spell “Cloudkill.”
And that’s what those raving about censorship do not understand (or one of the things they do not understand)—a licensing deal’s usage terms are not a limitation on speech, they are a limitation on how someone else is allowed to use Wizards’ speech. Nothing prohibits anyone from being bigoted, it just also allows Wizards to say “okay, but if you are a bigot, you don’t get to use our stuff and you are only allowed to use your own stuff.”
Oh, if only if only the names of spells were Wizards' IP. Then, perhaps, there might be a shred of something relevant here.
Well, since plenty of things like “Cloudkill” are very clearly Wizards’ IP, I am glad you agree with me!
To state that something "is clearly Wizards' IP" when it's actually not Wizards' IP is demonstrating ignorance at best.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
Say it with me: 6(f) is not censorship. It places exactly zero limitations on a third party own speech.
What it does do is place limitations on Wizards of the Coast’s own speech.
A third party is free to make the book Bigotry: A Guide to Adding Racism Back into the World’s Most Popular TTRPG if they so chose. Absolutely nothing in 1.2 stops then from publishing that book—and, provided it does not break any laws or infringe on Wizards’ IP in any way, they have every legal right to make that content.
What it does stop them from doing is including Wizards’ speech in that book. They can add a paragraph about how you can use a spell that creates a noxious cloud to genocide innocent children (as Gary Gygax intended)—they just can’t call that spell “Cloudkill.”
And that’s what those raving about censorship do not understand (or one of the things they do not understand)—a licensing deal’s usage terms are not a limitation on speech, they are a limitation on how someone else is allowed to use Wizards’ speech. Nothing prohibits anyone from being bigoted, it just also allows Wizards to say “okay, but if you are a bigot, you don’t get to use our stuff and you are only allowed to use your own stuff.”
Oh, if only if only the names of spells were Wizards' IP. Then, perhaps, there might be a shred of something relevant here.
Well, since plenty of things like “Cloudkill” are very clearly Wizards’ IP, I am glad you agree with me!
To state that something "is clearly Wizards' IP" when it's actually not Wizards' IP is demonstrating ignorance at best.
The specific artistic expression contained in the word “Cloudkill” - an artistic expression originating in D&D and used within the TTRPG market either by D&D or by folks who have licensed the name from D&D. It very clearly does fall into Wizards’ IP protections. The mechanics don’t - you could make a spell that does the exact same thing and call it “Choking Gas”, but you can’t call it Cloudkill.
Sometimes it's realism. With a London-based group I played an awesome game where we played as members of an underclass of drow in a system oppressed by the ruling high elves above. Having games that are open to the realities of racism can be great. It all depends on the content and the ways that players respond to it.
Say it with me: 6(f) is not censorship. It places exactly zero limitations on a third party own speech.
What it does do is place limitations on Wizards of the Coast’s own speech.
A third party is free to make the book Bigotry: A Guide to Adding Racism Back into the World’s Most Popular TTRPG if they so chose. Absolutely nothing in 1.2 stops then from publishing that book—and, provided it does not break any laws or infringe on Wizards’ IP in any way, they have every legal right to make that content.
What it does stop them from doing is including Wizards’ speech in that book. They can add a paragraph about how you can use a spell that creates a noxious cloud to genocide innocent children (as Gary Gygax intended)—they just can’t call that spell “Cloudkill.”
And that’s what those raving about censorship do not understand (or one of the things they do not understand)—a licensing deal’s usage terms are not a limitation on speech, they are a limitation on how someone else is allowed to use Wizards’ speech. Nothing prohibits anyone from being bigoted, it just also allows Wizards to say “okay, but if you are a bigot, you don’t get to use our stuff and you are only allowed to use your own stuff.”
Oh, if only if only the names of spells were Wizards' IP. Then, perhaps, there might be a shred of something relevant here.
Well, since plenty of things like “Cloudkill” are very clearly Wizards’ IP, I am glad you agree with me!
To state that something "is clearly Wizards' IP" when it's actually not Wizards' IP is demonstrating ignorance at best.
The specific artistic expression contained in the word “Cloudkill” - an artistic expression originating in D&D and used within the TTRPG market either by D&D or by folks who have licensed the name from D&D. It very clearly does fall into Wizards’ IP protections. The mechanics don’t - you could make a spell that does the exact same thing and call it “Choking Gas”, but you can’t call it Cloudkill.
But go on, keep armchair lawyering.
You can keep saying "clearly IP", yet the fact remains that these are still not IP. Wizards does want to assert exactly what you suggest, though. It's not hard to conclude that a big reason they want creators to agree to use "OGL" 1.2 is so that they can treat these things as if they were actually IP (as far as their license goes, at least). However, the fact remains that unlike "Tasha" and "Fizban", things such as "cloudkill" and "owlbear" are not unique proper nouns. As such, they are not subject to copyright, and are not IP.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
Sometimes it's realism. With a London-based group I played an awesome game where we played as members of an underclass of drow in a system oppressed by the ruling high elves above. Having games that are open to the realities of racism can be great. It all depends on the content and the ways that players respond to it.
Literally no one is stopping your personal game from exploring any themes of racism you want it to.
Actually... the irony is, there was Demi-VTTs already in play in the late 90s and early 2ks, and the writers of the License were aware of it. Hell's We use to play using IRC and LiveJournal. And not long afterwards Neverwinter Knights came out with DM tools. Also there was a VTM game with Story Teller Mode. Also the 2.5 Edition of D&D came with a CD-Rom filled with the full ruleset character creator, and Animated Dice.
There's nothing "ironic" about this - the creators of Neverwinter Nights (Bioware) had a custom license to create that game and its DMing tools, they didn't use the OGL to do so. That's why they could call it "Neverwinter Nights" in the first place.
However, the fact remains that unlike "Tasha" and "Fizban", things such as "cloudkill" and "owlbear" are not unique proper nouns. As such, they are not subject to copyright, and are not IP.
Do you actually think that only proper nouns can be IP?
No but generic enough terms and game mechanics are not IP nor viable for copyright, along with things of previous art. Owls and Bears exist, combining the two does not befit a unique enough art. If that were so, Pioneer and the author of Tenchi Muyo could sue the dozens of people using Cabbits in their fictions. Grovash the skateboarding Owlbear does however. I think, in a court of law, that even something like Magic Missile would be easy to point out as a broad enough use of terms, but Mordi's Magic Mansion would still be protected as defined by it's unique name and history.
No but generic enough terms and game mechanics are not IP nor viable for copyright, along with things of previous art. Owls and Bears exist, combining the two does not befit a unique enough art. If that were so, Pioneer and the author of Tenchi Muyo could sue the dozens of people using Cabbits in their fictions. Grovash the skateboarding Owlbear does however. I think, in a court of law, that even something like Magic Missile would be easy to point out as a broad enough use of terms, but Mordi's Magic Mansion would still be protected as defined by it's unique name and history.
If you can with 100% perfect accuracy identify where the line is between what is and isn't IP, I suggest you open a practice in IP law, you'll make a killing.
No but generic enough terms and game mechanics are not IP nor viable for copyright, along with things of previous art. Owls and Bears exist, combining the two does not befit a unique enough art. If that were so, Pioneer and the author of Tenchi Muyo could sue the dozens of people using Cabbits in their fictions. Grovash the skateboarding Owlbear does however. I think, in a court of law, that even something like Magic Missile would be easy to point out as a broad enough use of terms, but Mordi's Magic Mansion would still be protected as defined by it's unique name and history.
If you can with 100% perfect accuracy identify where the line is between what is and isn't IP, I suggest you open a practice in IP law, you'll make a killing.
Considering I deal with contracts on a daily basis to run and operate my business, including my own IP and Trademarks?
I do feel a bit more qualified than some one who for some reason finds that it’s okay to use struggles of real people as a shield and a bludgeon to do what seems like ill advised contract violations and misunderstandings on how copyright laws actually work.
Censorship is a difficult necessity that should not be allowed to be done by a corporation without recurse. Certainly there must not be waiving appeal. This is not about getting (temporarily? silenced) on a forum, but about losing the license and having to destroy your stockpile and being unable to produce. Is that not within the cards? Maybe not now. Maybe I trust the current staff. Maybe I trust the current executives. Maybe all in good faith. Even if that would all pass one must not have it in the contract/license as all those actors can change, for example just by selling the IP or replacing the president of WotC or CEO of Hasbro and many more.
Censorship is complex. Simple unchecked absolute corporate power is pretty much the worst approach to it there is.
Any OGL that deauthorizes 1.0a is unacceptable. If there is a new one that is better then 1.0a allows you to use it, simple. After seeing the proposed OGL that started this storm of feces, I absolutely do NOT feel that I can trust WOTC to "do the right thing" in their interpretations of what is or is not offensive or hateful. We basically caught them trying to roofie our drink, then they say "my bad, wanna go on a date?" I trust gas station sushi and a fart 4 hours later more than I do WOTC.
If they listened AT ALL (they don't) they would absolutely know without a shadow of a doubt we want 1.0a to stand. If they want a better OGL then make a better one and it will be used as 1.0a allows. It's a very simple concept and if they cared then that is the route they would take.
Say it with me: 6(f) is not censorship. It places exactly zero limitations on a third party own speech.
What it does do is place limitations on Wizards of the Coast’s own speech.
A third party is free to make the book Bigotry: A Guide to Adding Racism Back into the World’s Most Popular TTRPG if they so chose. Absolutely nothing in 1.2 stops then from publishing that book—and, provided it does not break any laws or infringe on Wizards’ IP in any way, they have every legal right to make that content.
What it does stop them from doing is including Wizards’ speech in that book. They can add a paragraph about how you can use a spell that creates a noxious cloud to genocide innocent children (as Gary Gygax intended)—they just can’t call that spell “Cloudkill.”
And that’s what those raving about censorship do not understand (or one of the things they do not understand)—a licensing deal’s usage terms are not a limitation on speech, they are a limitation on how someone else is allowed to use Wizards’ speech. Nothing prohibits anyone from being bigoted, it just also allows Wizards to say “okay, but if you are a bigot, you don’t get to use our stuff and you are only allowed to use your own stuff.”
This absolutely has nothing to do with the OGL or what Wizards intends to do.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieOh, if only if only the names of spells were Wizards' IP. Then, perhaps, there might be a shred of something relevant here.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieI'm good with that, not likely to happen, as Chris Cocks wants to sink all 3rd party content, sink all VTTs, Kill DnDB and other online Databases of D&D content, and force everyone on the Official D&D VTT with it's Animations, NFTs, and aggressive over monetization. With only Collectors books being released occasionally.
So yeah by then I'll be only playing Pathfinder and other 3rd party TTRPGs and I wont spend a dime on any Hasbro inc product ever again, I will (have already) convince my very large family to do the same.
Well, since plenty of things like “Cloudkill” are very clearly Wizards’ IP, I am glad you agree with me!
That will be ORC, as it will be protected by a non-profit organization, and all the third party content creators are working to make it happen.
Actually... the irony is, there was Demi-VTTs already in play in the late 90s and early 2ks, and the writers of the License were aware of it. Hell's We use to play using IRC and LiveJournal. And not long afterwards Neverwinter Knights came out with DM tools. Also there was a VTM game with Story Teller Mode. Also the 2.5 Edition of D&D came with a CD-Rom filled with the full ruleset character creator, and Animated Dice.
See: https://youtu.be/mL3b0cUIWwk
maybe for the masses, but we were already play D&D online by 1992, ak MUDs, Text Based D&D Games were one of the first uses of the Internet. Dice Rollers were one of the first things invented for computer games. All the first generation CRPGs were based on the Table Top experience, and that was 1980. Ever wonder why Final Fantasy gets to use Mind Flayers? Because they had them in their games and copyrighted before TSR did. Obvious it was already a thin in the 80s. And most D&D players also played CRPGs, and could build their own PCs. My first VTT experience was at a comic book store in 1995 with lasers and smoke machines. (using War gaming Figures, and Wargaming set pieces.) The virtual part was the DM using light and music to recreate special effects on the table.
The Current CEO Chris Cocks never played D&D and is just trying to push everyone on his VTT to microtransaction hell the game. He doesn't understand, we D&D players invented the tech he is trying to use, we D&D players have been at this for 50 years. We sank D&D once because their went to s*** we can do it again,, it will make us sad to do so, just like last time.
F*** transphobia, racism, sexism, and homophobia, but also f*** a billion dollar company that:
- Schemes for power and control over an entire industry and an entire community
- Wants to exploit or destroy third party publishers and content creators (many of whom are BIPOC and/or LGBTQ) in order to profit shareholders
- Wants to extract the last nickel and dime from players (again, many of whom are BIPOC and/or LGBTQ) in order to profit shareholders
- Uses diversity and inclusion to shield itself from critique in its pursuit of dominance
In terms of social justice, the OGL is the commons; third party publishers, content creators, and players are the people; and Hasbro are the landlords who want to evict the people from the commons and enclose the commons for their profit and their profit alone.
In scenarios like that, white, masculine, cis-het capitalists on boards of directors and in shareholder meetings are the only people who win in the end, no matter how much they talk about diversity and inclusion.
The OGL protects third party publishers, content creators, and players, including those who are BIPOC and LGBTQ, from Hasbro.
In the case that anyone's posts warrant reporting, users may refer to D&D Beyond's Site Rules & Guidelines for their parameters.
To state that something "is clearly Wizards' IP" when it's actually not Wizards' IP is demonstrating ignorance at best.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieThe specific artistic expression contained in the word “Cloudkill” - an artistic expression originating in D&D and used within the TTRPG market either by D&D or by folks who have licensed the name from D&D. It very clearly does fall into Wizards’ IP protections. The mechanics don’t - you could make a spell that does the exact same thing and call it “Choking Gas”, but you can’t call it Cloudkill.
But go on, keep armchair lawyering.
Sometimes it's realism. With a London-based group I played an awesome game where we played as members of an underclass of drow in a system oppressed by the ruling high elves above. Having games that are open to the realities of racism can be great. It all depends on the content and the ways that players respond to it.
You can keep saying "clearly IP", yet the fact remains that these are still not IP. Wizards does want to assert exactly what you suggest, though. It's not hard to conclude that a big reason they want creators to agree to use "OGL" 1.2 is so that they can treat these things as if they were actually IP (as far as their license goes, at least). However, the fact remains that unlike "Tasha" and "Fizban", things such as "cloudkill" and "owlbear" are not unique proper nouns. As such, they are not subject to copyright, and are not IP.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieLiterally no one is stopping your personal game from exploring any themes of racism you want it to.
You and daddy Elon can be free speech absolutists all you want, but not with WotC's property or platforms.
There's nothing "ironic" about this - the creators of Neverwinter Nights (Bioware) had a custom license to create that game and its DMing tools, they didn't use the OGL to do so. That's why they could call it "Neverwinter Nights" in the first place.
Do you actually think that only proper nouns can be IP?
No but generic enough terms and game mechanics are not IP nor viable for copyright, along with things of previous art. Owls and Bears exist, combining the two does not befit a unique enough art. If that were so, Pioneer and the author of Tenchi Muyo could sue the dozens of people using Cabbits in their fictions. Grovash the skateboarding Owlbear does however. I think, in a court of law, that even something like Magic Missile would be easy to point out as a broad enough use of terms, but Mordi's Magic Mansion would still be protected as defined by it's unique name and history.
If you can with 100% perfect accuracy identify where the line is between what is and isn't IP, I suggest you open a practice in IP law, you'll make a killing.
Considering I deal with contracts on a daily basis to run and operate my business, including my own IP and Trademarks?
I do feel a bit more qualified than some one who for some reason finds that it’s okay to use struggles of real people as a shield and a bludgeon to do what seems like ill advised contract violations and misunderstandings on how copyright laws actually work.
But that’s just me.