You'e quoting a part of their Conditions of Use that only refers to behaviors that would only be conducted by customers: payment methods, purchasing being restricted to adults or only with the involvement of an adult, the purchase of alcohol, etc., etc. So what gave you the impression that was for "seller or buyer"? Or are you just making any argument again whether or not you know it to be true because this has always been about your winning?
Is there is a history of Amazon invoking that part of their Conditions of Use to terminate sellers' accounts due to their conduct? If not, you've convinced no one.
The only conduct that would get a seller into trouble is if the seller was selling products that went against the terms set for can be sold or the seller was behaving unprofessionally through the site, being abusive in communications or cheating people out of money—not that the website isn't full of venders getting away with just that.
If you want to tell yourself Amazon can just terminate a seller's account if that seller is some racist twit who says or does something racist, when there are many of them selling their racist books through Amazon, then go right ahead. You'd be dreaming. But I won't stop you.
"History" is irrelevant, they gave themselves the right to do it at their sole discretion, and anyone trying to sell there agrees to let them do it. You're the one who is convincing no one.
As for why they haven't invoked that clause, you're literally proving the point, that far worse things (real-life things even) than TTRPGs or evil drow or whatever boogeyman people have been dreaming up on these forums get ignored all the time. WotC having that clause doesn't mean they'll come after you, it means they are doing the bare minimum from a business standpoint. Accept it.
If you can't even be honest with yourself as well as with others and say whether you'd agree or disagree with such a decision on Wizards' part were they to invoke 6f in such an instance, then it's Ignore User for you, I guess.
If you're just going to argue in bad faith, troll and then put the entire forum on ignore, fine. I'll save you the trouble of inevitably adding me. Nothing of value was lost.
Hell, even if you can name 10, they could just slip a little "no racism please" into an OGL 1.0.1 that covers them in that regard, and won't tell content creators to piss off.
1.0.1: "no racism please!"
Racist: "1.0a is still authorized, I published under that, now get lost."
You mean imaginary racist, because the only example you can conjure up of inarguably blatantly racism to appear in the past twenty years in a product compatible with some edition of D&D is Ernie Gygax and his dumb racist game.
And assuming you believe what you have just said, then there is absolute zero argument to be made for 6f.
2.x gets released.
I'm not in favor of 6f as currently written. I want either a "General Public" standard added to it like in the Paizo Compatibility License, or to remove the "you can't sue us" clause, or to allow for a 30 day curative period before the revocation takes effect, or possibly even all three. But nuanced suggestions / compromises like these just end up getting shouted down as ad hominems fly around.
And just because EG was too dumb to try publishing his nonsense under 1.0a instead of using a clearly protected trademark, doesn't mean I think WotC should leave the barn door open for him or one of his trolls to try again.
Just because I think 1.2 is better than leaving 1.0a alone forever, doesn't mean I think it can't be improved.
I've absolute zero issue with Wizards not wanting to be associated with a game product that promotes hate. I'm not so sure they've any real recourse against those who only use the rules of the game, either way, as they don't own the rules and only the manner it which they're expressed.
My particular concern with 6f is its use of the word "conduct" as that is way too subjective and way too open to interpretation and will provide reason enough for rampaging mobs to sift through people's trash— tweet histories, for example—and then spitefully lobby and bully the company into giving them what they want.
You can dismiss that concern as much as you like.
Your doing so isn't going to convince me you aren't just doing so because you'd share in that spite.
The point is not to stop all content that does it. The point, as I've repeatedly stated, is to dissociate their official license from such content. Because a license is a tacit endorsement of the content by the licensor. In a perfect world would their be some unimpeachable universal metric or review board they could field such issues too? Yes. Do we live in such a world? No, and in my experience there is no review process that won't attract a fair share of critics or make a controversial ruling that gets everyone up in arms. Thus, given that they almost certainly won't be able to please everybody, they're looking to keep it in-house, which- again- is how most companies run content review. Do you think YouTube, Patreon, Twitch, or Kickstarter outsource their content reviewing services? And many 3PP's trust their ability to market their products to some combination of these forums, so clearly it has been a good enough system so far. Sure they could brush up the language a bit, but that's all set dressing.
Reread what I said. I only had to read your first sentence to know there was little point reading the remainder of what you have written. I said nothing of content. I was talking about conduct.
I'm sure you know who J. K. Rowling is.
Now imagine a publisher retweeting something she said. Nothing malicious. That would probably be enough to fuel the rage of the more radicalized elements in the hobby and if they lobbied and bullied Wizards long enough they'd probably get what they want.
You're welcome to articulate a moral and intellectual defense of why Wizards ought to be able to take food off the tables of each and every freelancer who does any work for that publisher just because radicalized elements in the hobby believe someone is a bigot.
Not legal. A moral and intellectual defense.
Inarguably blatant racism is one thing.
I couldn't care less if Wizards literally nuked someone like Ernie Gygax. But stop pretending 6f wouldn't be applied in a way that is corrupt and broken. And stop pretending this is about what Wizards ought to be able to do legally and not your just spitefully and selfishly wanting them to punish people who might disagree with you.
Six of one, half dozen of the other. Look, if Wizards abuses 6f, I say screw them and walk away. If you are absolutely convinced they are constitutionally incapable of acting in good faith, walk away now. But pushing for them to drop the clause entirely or leave 1.0a up is pointless; that's one of their lines in the sand. Also, I find it amusing that you're apparently opposed to lobbying and bullying only if it's not getting you want you want out of the situation.
The thing is they say it’s their like in the sand. What they are doing is legally questionable and the reasons they are giving for why they are making changes are misleading at best and false at worst. If your line in the sand is potentially not possible, they should really consider whether they need to move that line in the sand.
Wotc has unfortunately shown too many times recently they are not worthy of the trust needed to have so much power. So while they may have their line in the sand… they will need to pay the price if they want to push that. Many people will leave and already have. And their line in the sand will move if it is not lucrative enough. Because their entire thing is not a moral move. The things they are doing are not brand protection. They are disguised ways to control 3pp. To decide who can make money and smother those they don’t like for literally unchallengeable reasons. Why can’t these reasons be appealed to an unbiased 3rd party? If they are so concerned with what’s right? Especially after their own blunder with racially charged material.
And you can see just how cunningly they've disguised it from all the people calling them out on it. Rather undercuts the idea they could actually make use of it that way, I'd say. Someone, somewhere in the upper levels of the corporate chain was looking at making a play for the 3PPs. They learned that was a nuclear option to the community and backpedaled. But we're supposed to believe than some fig leaf that has already been torn to shreds by the doubters is their new cunning Trojan horse for doing the same thing? Yes, they will hypothetically have the power to abuse that clause. Just like Twitch, YouTube, Amazon, Patreon, and Kickstarter all have similar clauses they could potentially use to arbitrarily police their users and quash content they don't like. Except they don't, because it's not good business to drive people away from your product or service.
Also, there's no such thing as an unbiased third party. Certainly not one that could achieve anything close to universal recognition and acceptance. It would just be a boondoggle and attempt to pass the buck by WotC. They make the call, they suffer the consequences. If you aren't willing to entertain the possibility that they can act in good faith, then any agreement is pointless. Otherwise I'll judge them by their definite actions. Whatever 1.1 was, it got quashed hard, and we're probably never going to know more than bits, pieces, and hearsay about the story behind that. So far WotC has coexisted fairly well with the 3PP community, and under 1.2 they can't so much exploit them as burn both that community and themselves to the ground trying. So, I'm willing to at least trust in sufficient enlightened self-interest to keep everything standing.
I am not saying WotC's highest priority is being an upright pillar of morality. It's a for-profit business; their highest priority is making money. As a corollary to that, right now a major priority in service of that goal would be not making the news as either a company that supports/enables racists or a company that's picking on the little guy. 6f helps with the first, and the second is why they aren't likely to use 6f for more than the first.
The changes in the OGL. Is the tip of the iceberg imho, the generally loud outcry is about it, but the true underlying problems have been around for a long time and that's what pisses peoples off the most I think.
If anyone truely thinks this move is about inclusivity and safekeeping... That's laughable. It's about control, censorship and monetizing all the peoples who are growing up in a world where milking the user and microtransactions is the common practice.
If this situations is left unchallenged, it is going to devolve with time and open the doors to many more bad acting from WoTC/HASBRO.
They are going to turn this game & plateform around like blizzard did with WoW and epic did with fortnite. They are going to "fix" everything until D&D can become another conditioning chamber, where the user doesn't need to interact with other users to play and sink in money.Just give it time. This business model is the top hats wet dream.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
None are innocent, there is only those fool enough to believe they are, and those that reveals in the knowledge that they are not.
The changes in the OGL. Is the tip of the iceberg imho, the generally loud outcry is about it, but the true underlying problems have been around for a long time and that's what pisses peoples off the most I think.
If anyone truely thinks this move is about inclusivity and safekeeping... That's laughable. It's about control, censorship and monetizing all the peoples who are growing up in a world where milking the user and microtransactions is the common practice.
If this situations is left unchallenged, it is going to devolve with time and open the doors to many more bad acting from WoTC/HASBRO.
They are going to turn this game & plateform around like blizzard did with WoW and epic did with fortnite. They are going to "fix" everything until D&D can become another conditioning chamber, where the user doesn't need to interact with other users to play and sink in money.Just give it time. This business model is the top hats wet dream.
If the doomsaying comes true and it goes downhill then I'm happy to leave. Wouldn't be the first corporation I ended up leaving behind. But I'm certainly not going anywhere right now, especially when "ORC" doesn't even exist and I'm generally happy with the game.
I love how this thread devolved completely into debate-me-bro drama because people don't want to have a normal conversation.
So . . . that said . . .
Who's you guys' favorite Commentary YouTuber? I'm partial to WillyMacShow & Tipster, since they provide information in a clear, concise, and researched manner, or make it clear that it's off-the-cuff & opinion and not to be taken to virtue.
But yeah, I need to just move on. Not sure what exactly you mean by "commentary YouTuber". For reporting on this issue, Dungeon Dudes has been good about laying out the facts separately from their opinions and supporting 3PP's without any "storming the Bastille" rhetoric.
But yeah, I need to just move on. Not sure what exactly you mean by "commentary YouTuber". For reporting on this issue, Dungeon Dudes has been good about laying out the facts separately from their opinions and supporting 3PP's without any "storming the Bastille" rhetoric.
Fair statement. Let me piggyback on this and actually start a "normal conversation":
For context, when I mention "Commentary YouTuber", I refer to people who sit down - either in a longform, stream format; or a quick, edited, short form format - and discusss topics they find interesting within a specific niche that they fill. Examples would be discussing the TikTok girl who got blasted for levying a false allegation against a gymbro in one of her viral videos, or talking about the harmful evaluation conditions in Blizzard. They're basically indie journalists.
I do actually respect the Dungeon Dudes for their coverage of the OGL Controversy, since it was consise, to the point, and respectful while also not taking WotC's shit & being cheeky with their props placement. It read very well on screen, as two fans who are deeply concerned and disappointed in what is happening to their community. In that aspect, that video would qualify as a Commentary Video as it discussed a trending topic they had interest in, so you're not entirely off the cuff there. The channel itself, however, wouldn't qualify as such: they'd qualify as a TTRPG YouTuber.
Oh yes, they're attacking Open Licensing by making a license that is open unless you use it for hate speech. The horror!
We've already pointed out the problematic nature of them arbitrarily deciding what is "hateful."
It's no more problematic than every other user license ever for third part speech; this is how it works literally everywhere else when you're given license to publish under someone else's banner. They have the right to protect their speech in how their product is used.
No one is publishing "under someone's else's banner" or using "their product."
Any publisher can publish any game product and say it is compatible with any edition of D&D. They just can't name D&D. They can say things like "compatible with the world's most famous classic fantasy adventure game" or whatever. This is what all those other publishers do.
You keep making non-argument after non-argument based on your obvious lack of engagement with any books made by any of these publishers.
The thing is, they can legally say "compatible with D&D" according to trademark law. They just can't say or imply their product it *is a D&D product*. It's an artifact of OGL 1.0a that those publishing under 1.0a can't say "compatible with" any WotC trademark. This is part of the benefit that WotC gets from creators using it, along with them agreeing they won't use any of what Wizards considers "Product Identity" that are not actually protected by law.
Sorry. You did point out that detail to me earlier. I just copied what I'd said previously.
This is all to to say defenders of 6f are arguing in favor of something that makes little to no difference to anyone. That they are all gung-ho yay Wizards can preserve the reputation they've already ruined and do so just by going after racists. Only they can't.
They are being emotionally manipulated by Wizards. Just about everyone else in the industry who has read their calculated and contrived non-apology and torn it to shreds has said as much.
Yeah, for some it seems to be all about the boogeymen bigots in the game and how they "need" to be stopped at any cost. Is bigotphobia a word?
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
You'e quoting a part of their Conditions of Use that only refers to behaviors that would only be conducted by customers: payment methods, purchasing being restricted to adults or only with the involvement of an adult, the purchase of alcohol, etc., etc. So what gave you the impression that was for "seller or buyer"? Or are you just making any argument again whether or not you know it to be true because this has always been about your winning?
Is there is a history of Amazon invoking that part of their Conditions of Use to terminate sellers' accounts due to their conduct? If not, you've convinced no one.
The only conduct that would get a seller into trouble is if the seller was selling products that went against the terms set for can be sold or the seller was behaving unprofessionally through the site, being abusive in communications or cheating people out of money—not that the website isn't full of venders getting away with just that.
If you want to tell yourself Amazon can just terminate a seller's account if that seller is some racist twit who says or does something racist, when there are many of them selling their racist books through Amazon, then go right ahead. You'd be dreaming. But I won't stop you.
"History" is irrelevant, they gave themselves the right to do it at their sole discretion, and anyone trying to sell there agrees to let them do it. You're the one who is convincing no one.
As for why they haven't invoked that clause, you're literally proving the point, that far worse things (real-life things even) than TTRPGs or evil drow or whatever boogeyman people have been dreaming up on these forums get ignored all the time. WotC having that clause doesn't mean they'll come after you, it means they are doing the bare minimum from a business standpoint. Accept it.
Actually, the "bare minimum" would be to just do what every other publisher does, and say "we are not responsible or liable for anything published using this license." That is standard practice, not what Wizards is proposing.
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
This is all to to say defenders of 6f are arguing in favor of something that makes little to no difference to anyone. That they are all gung-ho yay Wizards can preserve the reputation they've already ruined and do so just by going after racists. Only they can't.
They are being emotionally manipulated by Wizards. Just about everyone else in the industry who has read their calculated and contrived non-apology and torn it to shreds has said as much.
Yeah, for some it seems to be all about the boogeymen bigots in the game and how they "need" to be stopped at any cost. Is bigotphobia a word?
It's a symptom of an era in which millions who are not particular smart believe complicated matters are as black and white as if they call others something they can't possibly be that something ... just because.
I don't believe it has as much to do with Intelligence as it does (lack of) Wisdom and XP. :D
Some of them are quite clever, just misguided or overly idealistic.
“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
But yeah, I need to just move on. Not sure what exactly you mean by "commentary YouTuber". For reporting on this issue, Dungeon Dudes has been good about laying out the facts separately from their opinions and supporting 3PP's without any "storming the Bastille" rhetoric.
Treantmonk, Insight Check and D4 have also been voices of reason on this.
Actually, the "bare minimum" would be to just do what every other publisher does, and say "we are not responsible or liable for anything published using this license." That is standard practice, not what Wizards is proposing.
That's not adequate for a company of Hasbro's size.
Actually, the "bare minimum" would be to just do what every other publisher does, and say "we are not responsible or liable for anything published using this license." That is standard practice, not what Wizards is proposing.
That's not adequate for a company of Hasbro's size.
Perhaps it might help us if you explain your assertion?
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
Ableism, homophobia, racism, and transphobia in the TTRPG community and the TTRPG industry need to be stopped, but the new Open Game License gives Hasbro more power and control over marginalized creators when compared to the old Open Game License.
In turn, marginalized creators lose opportunities to create diverse content for the TTRPG community and profit in the TTRPG industry.
That, in my opinion, is far from liberatory and, in fact, is harmful.
As a real life example, The Gallant Goblin recently released Queerfinder, a supplement that centers queer creators, queer characters, and queer stories in Pathfinder 2e.
The Gallant Goblin had plans to adapt Queerfinder for Dungeons and Dragons 5e, but now they have tabled those plans due to the new OGL.
That's a loss for marginalized creators, for diverse content, and for the TTRPG community, and it's all a direct result of the new OGL.
Ableism, homophobia, racism, and transphobia in the TTRPG community and the TTRPG industry need to be stopped, but the new Open Game License gives Hasbro more power and control over marginalized creators when compared to the old Open Game License.
In turn, marginalized creators lose opportunities to create diverse content for the TTRPG community and profit in the TTRPG industry.
That, in my opinion, is far from liberatory and, in fact, is harmful.
As a real life example, The Gallant Goblin recently released Queerfinder, a supplement that centers queer creators, queer characters, and queer stories in Pathfinder 2e.
The Gallant Goblin had plans to adapt Queerfinder for Dungeons and Dragons 5e, but now they have tabled those plans due to the new OGL.
That's a loss for marginalized creators, for diverse content, and for the TTRPG community, and it's all a direct result of the new OGL.
I find the idea of a future Hasbro/WotC that decides to court markets in China, or in certain regions of the US, to be particularly terrifying.
Especially since there are laws targeting these groups actually in the US that people are trying to implement as we sit here discussing this.
Even if current Hasbro/WotC had the absolute best intentions - which I don't believe for a second - giving them the power to determine that certain vulnerable individuals or communities can't be represented in their works is terrifying. It doesn't even have to be a competition thing - they could cave under pressure from states or regulatory groups, easily.
The people defending WotC here aren't considering how this clause could be weaponized - even if it were reigned in, or mitigated - against essentially anyone. But especially against vulnerable communities.
Perhaps it might help us if you explain your assertion?
Headlines can associate licensees to them in ways that the license itself can't prevent. It's beyond Pollyannaish to think "we disclaimed that {reprehensible licensee} didn't make that compatible content with our approval!" would be enough to avoid costly reputational damage, and the general public couldn't give a gibbering mouther about the difference between the OGL and a custom license in that regard. By including a moral termination clause, they have something concrete to point to to say "{reprehensible licensee} has been barred from working with our intellectual property in any capacity ever again." John Q Public will understand that, loud and clear.
Perhaps it might help us if you explain your assertion?
Headlines can associate licensees to them in ways that the license itself can't prevent. It's beyond Pollyannaish to think "we disclaimed that {reprehensible licensee} didn't make that compatible content with our approval!" would be enough to avoid costly reputational damage, and the general public couldn't give a gibbering mouther about the difference between the OGL and a custom license in that regard. By including a moral termination clause, they have something concrete to point to to say "{reprehensible licensee} has been barred from working with our intellectual property in any capacity ever again." John Q Public will understand that, loud and clear.
As opposed to the situation where a headline that talks about a RPG Supplement marketing itself as DnD compatible, where WotC has no valid legal recourse at all and is forced to say, "Unfortunately, they can claim compatibility with our game as it was published outside of a license and game mechanics aren't copyrightable, so we have no recourse at all to stop them, or even at a minimum force them not to claim compatibility or associate with us."
1.2 accomplishes next to nothing helpful for the community, certainly not the goal you're talking about here. Being able to point at it and say, "But at least we didn't license this!" isn't a significant improvement over, "The OGL is an open license, which allows for parties to do what they will with it. But if they violate the terms, or associate with our game in any way that is forbidden by the OGL, they're toast." It is, most likely, worse.
As opposed to the situation where a headline that talks about a RPG Supplement marketing itself as DnD compatible, where WotC has no valid legal recourse at all and is forced to say, "Unfortunately, they can claim compatibility with our game as it was published outside of a license and game mechanics aren't copyrightable, so we have no recourse at all to stop them, or even at a minimum force them not to claim compatibility or associate with us."
Do you really see no difference between "they used our license and our company's name is in their book" vs "they didn't use our license?" None at all?
As opposed to the situation where a headline that talks about a RPG Supplement marketing itself as DnD compatible, where WotC has no valid legal recourse at all and is forced to say, "Unfortunately, they can claim compatibility with our game as it was published outside of a license and game mechanics aren't copyrightable, so we have no recourse at all to stop them, or even at a minimum force them not to claim compatibility or associate with us."
Do you really see no difference between "they used our license and our company's name is in their book" vs "they didn't use our license?" None at all?
If they use 1.0a, they cannot put the companies name in their book anywhere but the license text. They also can't mention DnD, or anything else identified as Product Identity. Wizards can say, "These people used our Open License - available to literally everyone as inspired by open source software - and aren't related to us at all. They suck."
If they publish without a license, the bad guys can say "Check out our awful, hateful adventure, compatible with well known game Dungeons and Dragons!" right on the front. And Wizards can't do any more about it than they could with the licensed product, which again, is open to everyone by design - they aren't endorsing the people using it at any level.
How is the first situation not strictly superior for Wizards? They want 1.0a to be as appealing as possible, so people will actually use it, which actually gives them more control than they have if the OGL is so bad people just go around it.
As opposed to the situation where a headline that talks about a RPG Supplement marketing itself as DnD compatible, where WotC has no valid legal recourse at all and is forced to say, "Unfortunately, they can claim compatibility with our game as it was published outside of a license and game mechanics aren't copyrightable, so we have no recourse at all to stop them, or even at a minimum force them not to claim compatibility or associate with us."
Do you really see no difference between "they used our license and our company's name is in their book" vs "they didn't use our license?" None at all?
I really don't think people are as stupid as you make them out to be. I also don't think anyone needs to be protected by Hasbro/WoTC. Most of us are grown-ups and can handle that without their help. You what hurts their brand? Trying to backdoor appropriate the IP of other people and trying to take advantage of people who don't understand what they are giving up if they sign that license, trying to muscle the market to make consumers pay more for the same or less. After all, they say they aren't taking enough money from us. That's what "under-monetized" means.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"History" is irrelevant, they gave themselves the right to do it at their sole discretion, and anyone trying to sell there agrees to let them do it. You're the one who is convincing no one.
As for why they haven't invoked that clause, you're literally proving the point, that far worse things (real-life things even) than TTRPGs or evil drow or whatever boogeyman people have been dreaming up on these forums get ignored all the time. WotC having that clause doesn't mean they'll come after you, it means they are doing the bare minimum from a business standpoint. Accept it.
If you're just going to argue in bad faith, troll and then put the entire forum on ignore, fine. I'll save you the trouble of inevitably adding me. Nothing of value was lost.
And you can see just how cunningly they've disguised it from all the people calling them out on it. Rather undercuts the idea they could actually make use of it that way, I'd say. Someone, somewhere in the upper levels of the corporate chain was looking at making a play for the 3PPs. They learned that was a nuclear option to the community and backpedaled. But we're supposed to believe than some fig leaf that has already been torn to shreds by the doubters is their new cunning Trojan horse for doing the same thing? Yes, they will hypothetically have the power to abuse that clause. Just like Twitch, YouTube, Amazon, Patreon, and Kickstarter all have similar clauses they could potentially use to arbitrarily police their users and quash content they don't like. Except they don't, because it's not good business to drive people away from your product or service.
Also, there's no such thing as an unbiased third party. Certainly not one that could achieve anything close to universal recognition and acceptance. It would just be a boondoggle and attempt to pass the buck by WotC. They make the call, they suffer the consequences. If you aren't willing to entertain the possibility that they can act in good faith, then any agreement is pointless. Otherwise I'll judge them by their definite actions. Whatever 1.1 was, it got quashed hard, and we're probably never going to know more than bits, pieces, and hearsay about the story behind that. So far WotC has coexisted fairly well with the 3PP community, and under 1.2 they can't so much exploit them as burn both that community and themselves to the ground trying. So, I'm willing to at least trust in sufficient enlightened self-interest to keep everything standing.
I am not saying WotC's highest priority is being an upright pillar of morality. It's a for-profit business; their highest priority is making money. As a corollary to that, right now a major priority in service of that goal would be not making the news as either a company that supports/enables racists or a company that's picking on the little guy. 6f helps with the first, and the second is why they aren't likely to use 6f for more than the first.
The changes in the OGL. Is the tip of the iceberg imho, the generally loud outcry is about it, but the true underlying problems have been around for a long time and that's what pisses peoples off the most I think.
If anyone truely thinks this move is about inclusivity and safekeeping... That's laughable. It's about control, censorship and monetizing all the peoples who are growing up in a world where milking the user and microtransactions is the common practice.
If this situations is left unchallenged, it is going to devolve with time and open the doors to many more bad acting from WoTC/HASBRO.
They are going to turn this game & plateform around like blizzard did with WoW and epic did with fortnite. They are going to "fix" everything until D&D can become another conditioning chamber, where the user doesn't need to interact with other users to play and sink in money.Just give it time. This business model is the top hats wet dream.
None are innocent, there is only those fool enough to believe they are, and those that reveals in the knowledge that they are not.
If the doomsaying comes true and it goes downhill then I'm happy to leave. Wouldn't be the first corporation I ended up leaving behind. But I'm certainly not going anywhere right now, especially when "ORC" doesn't even exist and I'm generally happy with the game.
I love how this thread devolved completely into debate-me-bro drama because people don't want to have a normal conversation.
So . . . that said . . .
Who's you guys' favorite Commentary YouTuber? I'm partial to WillyMacShow & Tipster, since they provide information in a clear, concise, and researched manner, or make it clear that it's off-the-cuff & opinion and not to be taken to virtue.
What is this "normal" you speak of.
But yeah, I need to just move on. Not sure what exactly you mean by "commentary YouTuber". For reporting on this issue, Dungeon Dudes has been good about laying out the facts separately from their opinions and supporting 3PP's without any "storming the Bastille" rhetoric.
Fair statement. Let me piggyback on this and actually start a "normal conversation":
For context, when I mention "Commentary YouTuber", I refer to people who sit down - either in a longform, stream format; or a quick, edited, short form format - and discusss topics they find interesting within a specific niche that they fill. Examples would be discussing the TikTok girl who got blasted for levying a false allegation against a gymbro in one of her viral videos, or talking about the harmful evaluation conditions in Blizzard. They're basically indie journalists.
I do actually respect the Dungeon Dudes for their coverage of the OGL Controversy, since it was consise, to the point, and respectful while also not taking WotC's shit & being cheeky with their props placement. It read very well on screen, as two fans who are deeply concerned and disappointed in what is happening to their community. In that aspect, that video would qualify as a Commentary Video as it discussed a trending topic they had interest in, so you're not entirely off the cuff there. The channel itself, however, wouldn't qualify as such: they'd qualify as a TTRPG YouTuber.
Yeah, for some it seems to be all about the boogeymen bigots in the game and how they "need" to be stopped at any cost. Is bigotphobia a word?
“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 SatieActually, the "bare minimum" would be to just do what every other publisher does, and say "we are not responsible or liable for anything published using this license." That is standard practice, not what Wizards is proposing.
“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 don't believe it has as much to do with Intelligence as it does (lack of) Wisdom and XP. :D
Some of them are quite clever, just misguided or overly idealistic.
“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 SatieTreantmonk, Insight Check and D4 have also been voices of reason on this.
That's not adequate for a company of Hasbro's size.
Perhaps it might help us if you explain your assertion?
“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 SatieAbleism, homophobia, racism, and transphobia in the TTRPG community and the TTRPG industry need to be stopped, but the new Open Game License gives Hasbro more power and control over marginalized creators when compared to the old Open Game License.
In turn, marginalized creators lose opportunities to create diverse content for the TTRPG community and profit in the TTRPG industry.
That, in my opinion, is far from liberatory and, in fact, is harmful.
As a real life example, The Gallant Goblin recently released Queerfinder, a supplement that centers queer creators, queer characters, and queer stories in Pathfinder 2e.
The Gallant Goblin had plans to adapt Queerfinder for Dungeons and Dragons 5e, but now they have tabled those plans due to the new OGL.
That's a loss for marginalized creators, for diverse content, and for the TTRPG community, and it's all a direct result of the new OGL.
I find the idea of a future Hasbro/WotC that decides to court markets in China, or in certain regions of the US, to be particularly terrifying.
Especially since there are laws targeting these groups actually in the US that people are trying to implement as we sit here discussing this.
Even if current Hasbro/WotC had the absolute best intentions - which I don't believe for a second - giving them the power to determine that certain vulnerable individuals or communities can't be represented in their works is terrifying. It doesn't even have to be a competition thing - they could cave under pressure from states or regulatory groups, easily.
The people defending WotC here aren't considering how this clause could be weaponized - even if it were reigned in, or mitigated - against essentially anyone. But especially against vulnerable communities.
Headlines can associate licensees to them in ways that the license itself can't prevent. It's beyond Pollyannaish to think "we disclaimed that {reprehensible licensee} didn't make that compatible content with our approval!" would be enough to avoid costly reputational damage, and the general public couldn't give a gibbering mouther about the difference between the OGL and a custom license in that regard. By including a moral termination clause, they have something concrete to point to to say "{reprehensible licensee} has been barred from working with our intellectual property in any capacity ever again." John Q Public will understand that, loud and clear.
"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"
what a ridiculous straw man.
How much is WOTC paying you?
As opposed to the situation where a headline that talks about a RPG Supplement marketing itself as DnD compatible, where WotC has no valid legal recourse at all and is forced to say, "Unfortunately, they can claim compatibility with our game as it was published outside of a license and game mechanics aren't copyrightable, so we have no recourse at all to stop them, or even at a minimum force them not to claim compatibility or associate with us."
1.2 accomplishes next to nothing helpful for the community, certainly not the goal you're talking about here. Being able to point at it and say, "But at least we didn't license this!" isn't a significant improvement over, "The OGL is an open license, which allows for parties to do what they will with it. But if they violate the terms, or associate with our game in any way that is forbidden by the OGL, they're toast." It is, most likely, worse.
Do you really see no difference between "they used our license and our company's name is in their book" vs "they didn't use our license?" None at all?
If they use 1.0a, they cannot put the companies name in their book anywhere but the license text. They also can't mention DnD, or anything else identified as Product Identity. Wizards can say, "These people used our Open License - available to literally everyone as inspired by open source software - and aren't related to us at all. They suck."
If they publish without a license, the bad guys can say "Check out our awful, hateful adventure, compatible with well known game Dungeons and Dragons!" right on the front. And Wizards can't do any more about it than they could with the licensed product, which again, is open to everyone by design - they aren't endorsing the people using it at any level.
How is the first situation not strictly superior for Wizards? They want 1.0a to be as appealing as possible, so people will actually use it, which actually gives them more control than they have if the OGL is so bad people just go around it.
I really don't think people are as stupid as you make them out to be. I also don't think anyone needs to be protected by Hasbro/WoTC. Most of us are grown-ups and can handle that without their help. You what hurts their brand? Trying to backdoor appropriate the IP of other people and trying to take advantage of people who don't understand what they are giving up if they sign that license, trying to muscle the market to make consumers pay more for the same or less. After all, they say they aren't taking enough money from us. That's what "under-monetized" means.