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.
1) They are welcome to try that approach and see how it goes for them.
2) They can try that whether 1.0a stays intact or is deauthorized, so how is leaving it intact to WotC's advantage?
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.
1) They are welcome to try that approach and see how it goes for them.
2) They can try that whether 1.0a stays intact or is deauthorized, so how is leaving it intact to WotC's advantage?
Leaving 1.0a intact has essentially no real disadvantages, beyond them not having leverage to try and muscle competition out of the market under dubious legal terms. It immediately gets them massive community goodwill, and starts a path to rebuilding trust. I'd say that's well worth considering - unless of course, they're so attached to trying to kill video games and VTTs that they don't care if the community implodes.
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?
Here's where my brain went:
The following comment is compatable with thatgamethatshall not be mentioned.
Superman is a Gary Stu, don't @ me. - Dingbat
Dingbat has absolutely nothing to do with our company and we condemn in the harshest possible way their characterization of Superman. We love the caped person. In fact, here's a stated version for play in the sand castle for 1.99. - Giant Mega corporation underpaid PR person.
Or,
The following comment is compatible with D&D, look, I have a creator badge released under 1.0a
Superman is a Gary Stu, don't @ me. - Official Dingbat
Dingbat is a creator using our, but, we don't always agree with them. We defend their right rto speech, though it has some limits which the community is enforcing by not printing or buying dingbat's work. Also.....we condemn in the harshest possible way their characterization of Superman. We love the caped person. In fact, here's a stated version for play in the sand castle for 1.99. - Giant Mega corporation underpaid PR person.
Ding bat under 1.2
Nothing- Dingbat
Here's a superman skin for your barbarian/sorlockadin uberperson, comes in 78 colours and is only 1.99. Act now before this special releasse is no more and you have missed out and all your friends have one and you're stuck with a grey unpainted virtuamini.
That final scenario could change if Dingbat has an appeals process.
Obviously, the analogy is nowhere near perfect because Dingbat didn't actually break the 6f clause. I just didn't want to say anything that would out of a lack of desire to hurt anyone. Other than DC fans. :)
Substitue the superman line for something in your head, and Wizards responding with a product that shows they aren't that. I don't know, the whole argument seems weird to me, as I would on the one hand not want Dingbat to say things, yet Dingbat is going to Dingbat. Is anyone going to listen? Can we eradicate Dingbat thinking in a way that cares for their personhood?
Leaving 1.0a intact has essentially no real disadvantages, beyond them not having leverage to try and muscle competition out of the market under dubious legal terms. It immediately gets them massive community goodwill, and starts a path to rebuilding trust. I'd say that's well worth considering - unless of course, they're so attached to trying to kill video games and VTTs that they don't care if the community implodes.
As folks here are so keen to remind everybody ad nauseam, WotC has lost their trust for good and ORC IS THE FUTURE - so no, there is absolutely nothing to be gained or regained by keeping 1.0a. You've tipped your collective hands and are now a lost cause / write-off.
The following comment is compatable with thatgamethatshall not be mentioned.
Superman is a Gary Stu, don't @ me. - Dingbat
Dingbat has absolutely nothing to do with our company and we condemn in the harshest possible way their characterization of Superman. We love the caped person. In fact, here's a stated version for play in the sand castle for 1.99. - Giant Mega corporation underpaid PR person.
Or,
The following comment is compatible with D&D, look, I have a creator badge released under 1.0a
Superman is a Gary Stu, don't @ me. - Official Dingbat
Dingbat is a creator using our, but, we don't always agree with them. We defend their right rto speech, though it has some limits which the community is enforcing by not printing or buying dingbat's work. Also.....we condemn in the harshest possible way their characterization of Superman. We love the caped person. In fact, here's a stated version for play in the sand castle for 1.99. - Giant Mega corporation underpaid PR person.
Ding bat under 1.2
Nothing- Dingbat
Here's a superman skin for your barbarian/sorlockadin uberperson, comes in 78 colours and is only 1.99. Act now before this special releasse is no more and you have missed out and all your friends have one and you're stuck with a grey unpainted virtuamini.
That final scenario could change if Dingbat has an appeals process.
Obviously, the analogy is nowhere near perfect because Dingbat didn't actually break the 6f clause. I just didn't want to say anything that would out of a lack of desire to hurt anyone. Other than DC fans. :)
Substitue the superman line for something in your head, and Wizards responding with a product that shows they aren't that. I don't know, the whole argument seems weird to me, as I would on the one hand not want Dingbat to say things, yet Dingbat is going to Dingbat. Is anyone going to listen? Can we eradicate Dingbat thinking in a way that cares for their personhood?
Option 1 you believe WotC has no recourse because no license at all is used. Okay, tell Dingbat to go ahead, bring it.
Option 2 not only does WotC have no recourse, but now they have an extra layer of potential association to disclaim because their name (not just D&D's name, their name) is in Dingbat's book.
Option 3 WotC has very clear recourse they can point to - not just to disclaim Dingbat, but to tell everyone "here are the steps we're taking, that Dingbat agreed to before using our license." Easy distance is easy.
As folks here are so keen to remind everybody ad nauseam, WotC has lost their trust for good and ORC IS THE FUTURE - so no, there is absolutely nothing to be gained or regained by keeping 1.0a. You've tipped your collective hands and are now a lost cause / write-off.
I've said that they've lost all trust so long as they're pursuing de-authorization, and they can't start to rebuild it until they give that up.
Its extremely unlikely WotC is going to be willing to put content up under ORC - they should, but thats even less likely than them giving up on deauthorization - meaning that backing down on 1.0a is their best chance to salvage some third party creators willing to take risks. The could also go the route that was intended by the original creators of the OGL - leave 1.0a authorized, and come up with some way to make its successor attractive enough to choose it over 1.0a voluntarily.
Very few people are actually suggesting WotC can't 'come back into the light' ever, as it were - and most people want to like and support DnD, if WotC only listens to the community.
Leaving 1.0a intact has essentially no real disadvantages, beyond them not having leverage to try and muscle competition out of the market under dubious legal terms. It immediately gets them massive community goodwill, and starts a path to rebuilding trust. I'd say that's well worth considering - unless of course, they're so attached to trying to kill video games and VTTs that they don't care if the community implodes.
As folks here are so keen to remind everybody ad nauseam, WotC has lost their trust for good and ORC IS THE FUTURE - so no, there is absolutely nothing to be gained or regained by keeping 1.0a. You've tipped your collective hands and are now a lost cause / write-off.
The following comment is compatable with thatgamethatshall not be mentioned.
Superman is a Gary Stu, don't @ me. - Dingbat
Dingbat has absolutely nothing to do with our company and we condemn in the harshest possible way their characterization of Superman. We love the caped person. In fact, here's a stated version for play in the sand castle for 1.99. - Giant Mega corporation underpaid PR person.
Or,
The following comment is compatible with D&D, look, I have a creator badge released under 1.0a
Superman is a Gary Stu, don't @ me. - Official Dingbat
Dingbat is a creator using our, but, we don't always agree with them. We defend their right rto speech, though it has some limits which the community is enforcing by not printing or buying dingbat's work. Also.....we condemn in the harshest possible way their characterization of Superman. We love the caped person. In fact, here's a stated version for play in the sand castle for 1.99. - Giant Mega corporation underpaid PR person.
Ding bat under 1.2
Nothing- Dingbat
Here's a superman skin for your barbarian/sorlockadin uberperson, comes in 78 colours and is only 1.99. Act now before this special releasse is no more and you have missed out and all your friends have one and you're stuck with a grey unpainted virtuamini.
That final scenario could change if Dingbat has an appeals process.
Obviously, the analogy is nowhere near perfect because Dingbat didn't actually break the 6f clause. I just didn't want to say anything that would out of a lack of desire to hurt anyone. Other than DC fans. :)
Substitue the superman line for something in your head, and Wizards responding with a product that shows they aren't that. I don't know, the whole argument seems weird to me, as I would on the one hand not want Dingbat to say things, yet Dingbat is going to Dingbat. Is anyone going to listen? Can we eradicate Dingbat thinking in a way that cares for their personhood?
Option 1 you believe WotC has no recourse because no license at all is used. Okay, tell Dingbat to go ahead, bring it.
Option 2 not only does WotC have no recourse, but now they have an extra layer of potential association to disclaim because their name (not just D&D's name, their name) is in Dingbat's book.
Option 3 WotC has very clear recourse they can point to - not just to disclaim Dingbat, but to tell everyone "here are the steps we're taking, that Dingbat agreed to before using our license." Easy distance is easy.
Yet, in all three options, Dingbat dingbats before anything is done about it. So really, what we are talking about is a corporation's ability to distance itself from something it does not like. Yet, in 1.2 they can turn anyone in to a dingbat with no recourse, even if they didn't dingbat. That feels wrong, and I am not sure why I want to feel good that a corporation can protect itself.
They are saying they are protecting me, but the truth is, they are merely protecting themselves.
I do support 6rf, to be clear. I just want it to come with protections, like a neutral party review of their actions under 6f at the request of dingbat, just in case dingbat is actually a marginalized person and not at all a dingbat. If they are serious about protecting me, legitimate4 3rd party creators and themselves, then a review committee that includes an outside influence is necessary. Otherwise, it is over bearing corporate control that disincentivizes alternate viewpoints that need protecting (not dingbats, if isn't clear, I am not in favour of bad actors).
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.
Why wouldn't it be enough? I certainly would accept that explanation, as would anyone that actually believes in the principle freedoms of association and of expression (John Q Public, for example?). Catering to those that might not accept it (e.g. Sally J Worrywart) would validate the negation of these principles, thus eroding the freedoms that are the very cornerstone of free, open, democratic societies.
WotC is not responsible for anything others publish under the OGL. This fact is supported by principle and by law. Also in fact, those who would persist in publicly claiming WotC are responsible would be risking a defamation lawsuit (i.e. "rolling the dice" as you would say).
“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
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.
Why wouldn't it be enough? I certainly would accept that explanation, as would anyone that actually believes in the principle freedoms of association and of expression (John Q Public, for example). Catering to those that might not accept it would validate the negation of these principles, thus eroding the freedoms that are the very cornerstone of free, open, democratic societies.
WotC is not responsible for anything others publish under the OGL. This fact is supported by principle and by law. Also in fact, those who would persist in publicly claiming WotC are responsible would be risking a defamation lawsuit (i.e. "rolling the dice" as you would say).
Right, because if there’s one thing that’s been highlighted in the past few weeks, it’s how much our society values careful and impartial review of news, as opposed to high octane emotionally charged pieces attacking whatever the present issue is.
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.
Why wouldn't it be enough? I certainly would accept that explanation, as would anyone that actually believes in the principle freedoms of association and of expression (John Q Public, for example). Catering to those that might not accept it would validate the negation of these principles, thus eroding the freedoms that are the very cornerstone of free, open, democratic societies.
WotC is not responsible for anything others publish under the OGL. This fact is supported by principle and by law. Also in fact, those who would persist in publicly claiming WotC are responsible would be risking a defamation lawsuit (i.e. "rolling the dice" as you would say).
Right, because if there’s one thing that’s been highlighted in the past few weeks, it’s how much our society values careful and impartial review of news, as opposed to high octane emotionally charged pieces attacking whatever the present issue is.
Which isn't something that is solved by going from 1.0a to 1.2.
1.2 doesn't particularly help - but it does potentially create massive problems down the road, by inventing the power for Wizards to target either their business competition or cave to external pressure and harm vulnerable groups due to pressure from either an increasingly hostile public or government entities.
Their exposure is essentially materially equivalent under 1.0a or 1.2 - them acting like they need to de-auth 1.0a for the reasons they stated is false, and misleading.
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.
Why wouldn't it be enough? I certainly would accept that explanation, as would anyone that actually believes in the principle freedoms of association and of expression (John Q Public, for example). Catering to those that might not accept it would validate the negation of these principles, thus eroding the freedoms that are the very cornerstone of free, open, democratic societies.
WotC is not responsible for anything others publish under the OGL. This fact is supported by principle and by law. Also in fact, those who would persist in publicly claiming WotC are responsible would be risking a defamation lawsuit (i.e. "rolling the dice" as you would say).
Right, because if there’s one thing that’s been highlighted in the past few weeks, it’s how much our society values careful and impartial review of news, as opposed to high octane emotionally charged pieces attacking whatever the present issue is.
What I've witnessed is both. Does it make sense to throw out democratic principles in response?
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
The fact that the two counter arguments I get to this are bad faith/disingenuous “what are they so scared of” arguments rather neatly highlights why WotC is unlikely to be comfortable trusting the direction of the narrative to the court of public opinion. Especially the invocation of “democracy”, which is a basis for governance, not business.
The fact that the two counter arguments I get to this are bad faith/disingenuous “what are they so scared of” arguments rather neatly highlights why WotC is unlikely to be comfortable trusting the direction of the narrative to the court of public opinion. Especially the invocation of “democracy”, which is a basis for governance, not business.
Bad faith? Seriously?
Hasbro, as a large well known corporation absolutely has significant reputational risk associated with association by disreputable parties. But decades of history suggest that the risk under 1.0a is minimal, 1.0a provides tools to mitigate that risk, and the majority of that risk is obviously external to 1.0a.
Therefore it makes no sense to use that risk as a justification throwing out 1.0a and move to a new version of the license that provides no additional effective mitigation of the risk. Their 'morality clause' is a gigantic hammer that can do minimal good in the long run, because the 'bad guys' have the option of simply avoiding it...
How can WOTC/Hazbro "De-Authorize" a license agreement? If I'm not mistaken with legal stuff, you can't do that... I mean, you can try to make a legal precedent for it but doing so would be bad for a lot of people and reasons.
Starting their own for 6th Edition sure, but all anyone has to do is say their material is for 5th Edition and WOTC can't do anything about it regardless.
Even funnier is the fact that they themselves state that 6th Edition is compatible with 5E; making it even more of a moot point.
They cannot "De-Authorize" a license that has been published and used for decades. That would be the same as any other company deciding to change/remove their license agreement for any product they've ever put out. The amount of chaos that this would create if say some incompetent judge sided with WOTC would open the floodgates for any other company, business, or organization to change and alter agreed-upon contracts/license.
In 2004, Wizards of the Coast addressed what would occur if the license was changed – the OGL "already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway".
What is a licensing agreement?
A licensing agreement is a contract between a licensor and licensee in which the licensee gains access to the licensor’s intellectual property. The party providing the intellectual property is called the licensor while the party receiving the intellectual property is called the licensee.
Amendment of License Agreement. This Agreement may be amended at any time by the parties to add or delete Licensed Marks or to modify the scope of Licensed Services. Such amendment (s) may be accomplished by a simple letter agreement outlining the amendment (s) and signed by both parties.
It doesn't work if the other party (You the user/creator) do not accept the amendment as you remain using 1.0.
On January 12, 2016, Wizards of the Coast released the 5th edition SRD under v1.0a of the OGL, marking a return to the Open Gaming format.
Additionally, content creators can access an additional license option by publishing through the Dungeon Masters Guild storefront; this license goes a step further by allowing individuals and third party publishers to create and sell content based on specific Wizards of the Coast intellectual property such as the Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Eberron, and the Magic: The Gathering planes. Content creators are allowed to set their own price, however, Wizards of the Coast and OneBookShelf take a 50% cut of the proceeds.
The fact that the two counter arguments I get to this are bad faith/disingenuous “what are they so scared of” arguments rather neatly highlights why WotC is unlikely to be comfortable trusting the direction of the narrative to the court of public opinion. Especially the invocation of “democracy”, which is a basis for governance, not business.
Bad faith? Seriously?
Hasbro, as a large well known corporation absolutely has significant reputational risk associated with association by disreputable parties. But decades of history suggest that the risk under 1.0a is minimal, 1.0a provides tools to mitigate that risk, and the majority of that risk is obviously external to 1.0a.
Therefore it makes no sense to use that risk as a justification throwing out 1.0a and move to a new version of the license that provides no additional effective mitigation of the risk
I genuinely cannot tell if you’re being disingenuous with the idea that WotC is only allowed to take a positive outlook towards the future while attacking any positive interpretation of their motives, or if you really believe you can approach the general public with that much good faith.
The fact that the two counter arguments I get to this are bad faith/disingenuous “what are they so scared of” arguments rather neatly highlights why WotC is unlikely to be comfortable trusting the direction of the narrative to the court of public opinion. Especially the invocation of “democracy”, which is a basis for governance, not business.
Bad faith? Seriously?
Hasbro, as a large well known corporation absolutely has significant reputational risk associated with association by disreputable parties. But decades of history suggest that the risk under 1.0a is minimal, 1.0a provides tools to mitigate that risk, and the majority of that risk is obviously external to 1.0a.
Therefore it makes no sense to use that risk as a justification throwing out 1.0a and move to a new version of the license that provides no additional effective mitigation of the risk
I genuinely cannot tell if you’re being disingenuous with the idea that WotC is only allowed to take a positive outlook towards the future while attacking any positive interpretation of their motives, or if you really believe you can approach the general public with that much good faith.
Their motives are especially transparent.
They talk about wanting to prevent hateful products, but the most significant new limitations are the exclusion of electronic products and severe limitations on VTTs. WotC is clearly attempting to engage in anti-competitive behavior, and using the 'hateful content' issue to justify it.
I've said it before and I've said it again - if the only thing they were adding to 1.2 or whatever it ends up being was stuff dedicated to fighting hateful and abusive content, I could at least entertain the thought that was their actual goal. So long as they're tieing that to their business goals of eliminating competition, they're operating in bad faith on the rest.
If they wanted to 'prove' their good intentions, they could.
The fact that the two counter arguments I get to this are bad faith/disingenuous “what are they so scared of” arguments rather neatly highlights why WotC is unlikely to be comfortable trusting the direction of the narrative to the court of public opinion. Especially the invocation of “democracy”, which is a basis for governance, not business.
Self-governance, you mean.
To be frank, it is not in a business' interest to throw away these principles, either. Appeasing the Sally J Worrywarts that really do argue in bad faith, using threats to reputation in place of reasoned arguments to force compliance with their point of view is a losing proposition. Giving into them only makes them more powerful, and enables them to demand more and more in appeasement, to the point where there is just no appeasing them. Going down this road, business actually gives away it's rights and power, until it has none and is at the mercy of the mob. How does that actually serve business? And finally, if this appeasement also negates the basic freedoms of society at large - if the Sallys can dictate the actions of not only businesses, but also those of every John Q Public - have we not lost self-governance to the mob as well? Is that not important or relevant to you?
“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
Yet, in all three options, Dingbat dingbats before anything is done about it. So really, what we are talking about is a corporation's ability to distance itself from something it does not like. Yet, in 1.2 they can turn anyone in to a dingbat with no recourse, even if they didn't dingbat. That feels wrong, and I am not sure why I want to feel good that a corporation can protect itself.
They are saying they are protecting me, but the truth is, they are merely protecting themselves.
I do support 6rf, to be clear. I just want it to come with protections, like a neutral party review of their actions under 6f at the request of dingbat, just in case dingbat is actually a marginalized person and not at all a dingbat. If they are serious about protecting me, legitimate4 3rd party creators and themselves, then a review committee that includes an outside influence is necessary. Otherwise, it is over bearing corporate control that disincentivizes alternate viewpoints that need protecting (not dingbats, if isn't clear, I am not in favour of bad actors).
1) Preventing Dingbat from dingbatting isn't the point. The point is giving WotC something very concrete they can point to and say "thing happened, but we immediately exercised our power to do this, we take thing very seriously" and have maximum credibility. As they have the most to lose from Dingbat's actions, that is a power they deserve to have.
2) I agree with you that 6f should have protections in order to be fine. A neutral party/review committee is not realistic (who would you get, Mr. Rogers? Paizo?) but I think a "general public" standard should be enough to prevent WotC simply using this as a cudgel, if they would even dare to at this point. And there should be a curative period to give the licensee a chance to fix whatever the problem is before being blacklisted, unless their breach is so egregious that it needs to be addressed asap, such as... well, such as what Ernie tried to do.
On the topic of performative politics, I feel like it’s also relevant that BIPOC creators who have worked with WotC as part of WotC’s diversity-and-inclusion-focused marketing strategy for D&D have talked publicly about being undermined, ignored, and gaslighted by WotC.
Imagine a return to the bust time of 4e, when there was no OGL, and when opportunities to create third party content for Dungeons and Dragons had dried up.
The only opportunity for BIPOC creators to create content for D&D would be to work for a company with a history of tokenization.
The fact that WotC moved away from 3/3.5e’s OGL to 4e’s GSL, a license under which far fewer third party creators wanted to create, was also a contributing factor to the bust time of 4e when compared to the boom time of 3/3.5e and 5e.
Not only was 4e a bad product, there was far less support from third party creators to buoy it.
If the lack of OGL during 4e weren’t a contributing factor, I feel like WotC wouldn’t have brought back the OGL for 5e.
The fact that the two counter arguments I get to this are bad faith/disingenuous “what are they so scared of” arguments rather neatly highlights why WotC is unlikely to be comfortable trusting the direction of the narrative to the court of public opinion. Especially the invocation of “democracy”, which is a basis for governance, not business.
Bad faith? Seriously?
Hasbro, as a large well known corporation absolutely has significant reputational risk associated with association by disreputable parties. But decades of history suggest that the risk under 1.0a is minimal, 1.0a provides tools to mitigate that risk, and the majority of that risk is obviously external to 1.0a.
Therefore it makes no sense to use that risk as a justification throwing out 1.0a and move to a new version of the license that provides no additional effective mitigation of the risk
I genuinely cannot tell if you’re being disingenuous with the idea that WotC is only allowed to take a positive outlook towards the future while attacking any positive interpretation of their motives, or if you really believe you can approach the general public with that much good faith.
Why do you have such a fundamental misunderstanding of how a person should enter into a business agreement? Risk avoidance is something anyone putting their time and money into something should take into account. Sure, that goes for WoTC but it goes for licensees as well. WoTC's proposed new OGL is just simply far too much risk for a licensee to take on. The arguments that they and you have made just skip right over that. It has a strong gaslighting vibe.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1) They are welcome to try that approach and see how it goes for them.
2) They can try that whether 1.0a stays intact or is deauthorized, so how is leaving it intact to WotC's advantage?
Leaving 1.0a intact has essentially no real disadvantages, beyond them not having leverage to try and muscle competition out of the market under dubious legal terms. It immediately gets them massive community goodwill, and starts a path to rebuilding trust. I'd say that's well worth considering - unless of course, they're so attached to trying to kill video games and VTTs that they don't care if the community implodes.
Here's where my brain went:
The following comment is compatable with thatgamethatshall not be mentioned.
Superman is a Gary Stu, don't @ me. - Dingbat
Dingbat has absolutely nothing to do with our company and we condemn in the harshest possible way their characterization of Superman. We love the caped person. In fact, here's a stated version for play in the sand castle for 1.99. - Giant Mega corporation underpaid PR person.
Or,
The following comment is compatible with D&D, look, I have a creator badge released under 1.0a
Superman is a Gary Stu, don't @ me. - Official Dingbat
Dingbat is a creator using our, but, we don't always agree with them. We defend their right rto speech, though it has some limits which the community is enforcing by not printing or buying dingbat's work. Also.....we condemn in the harshest possible way their characterization of Superman. We love the caped person. In fact, here's a stated version for play in the sand castle for 1.99. - Giant Mega corporation underpaid PR person.
Ding bat under 1.2
Nothing- Dingbat
Here's a superman skin for your barbarian/sorlockadin uberperson, comes in 78 colours and is only 1.99. Act now before this special releasse is no more and you have missed out and all your friends have one and you're stuck with a grey unpainted virtuamini.
That final scenario could change if Dingbat has an appeals process.
Obviously, the analogy is nowhere near perfect because Dingbat didn't actually break the 6f clause. I just didn't want to say anything that would out of a lack of desire to hurt anyone. Other than DC fans. :)
Substitue the superman line for something in your head, and Wizards responding with a product that shows they aren't that. I don't know, the whole argument seems weird to me, as I would on the one hand not want Dingbat to say things, yet Dingbat is going to Dingbat. Is anyone going to listen? Can we eradicate Dingbat thinking in a way that cares for their personhood?
As folks here are so keen to remind everybody ad nauseam, WotC has lost their trust for good and ORC IS THE FUTURE - so no, there is absolutely nothing to be gained or regained by keeping 1.0a. You've tipped your collective hands and are now a lost cause / write-off.
Option 1 you believe WotC has no recourse because no license at all is used. Okay, tell Dingbat to go ahead, bring it.
Option 2 not only does WotC have no recourse, but now they have an extra layer of potential association to disclaim because their name (not just D&D's name, their name) is in Dingbat's book.
Option 3 WotC has very clear recourse they can point to - not just to disclaim Dingbat, but to tell everyone "here are the steps we're taking, that Dingbat agreed to before using our license." Easy distance is easy.
I've said that they've lost all trust so long as they're pursuing de-authorization, and they can't start to rebuild it until they give that up.
Its extremely unlikely WotC is going to be willing to put content up under ORC - they should, but thats even less likely than them giving up on deauthorization - meaning that backing down on 1.0a is their best chance to salvage some third party creators willing to take risks. The could also go the route that was intended by the original creators of the OGL - leave 1.0a authorized, and come up with some way to make its successor attractive enough to choose it over 1.0a voluntarily.
Very few people are actually suggesting WotC can't 'come back into the light' ever, as it were - and most people want to like and support DnD, if WotC only listens to the community.
Yet, in all three options, Dingbat dingbats before anything is done about it. So really, what we are talking about is a corporation's ability to distance itself from something it does not like. Yet, in 1.2 they can turn anyone in to a dingbat with no recourse, even if they didn't dingbat. That feels wrong, and I am not sure why I want to feel good that a corporation can protect itself.
They are saying they are protecting me, but the truth is, they are merely protecting themselves.
I do support 6rf, to be clear. I just want it to come with protections, like a neutral party review of their actions under 6f at the request of dingbat, just in case dingbat is actually a marginalized person and not at all a dingbat. If they are serious about protecting me, legitimate4 3rd party creators and themselves, then a review committee that includes an outside influence is necessary. Otherwise, it is over bearing corporate control that disincentivizes alternate viewpoints that need protecting (not dingbats, if isn't clear, I am not in favour of bad actors).
Why wouldn't it be enough? I certainly would accept that explanation, as would anyone that actually believes in the principle freedoms of association and of expression (John Q Public, for example?). Catering to those that might not accept it (e.g. Sally J Worrywart) would validate the negation of these principles, thus eroding the freedoms that are the very cornerstone of free, open, democratic societies.
WotC is not responsible for anything others publish under the OGL. This fact is supported by principle and by law. Also in fact, those who would persist in publicly claiming WotC are responsible would be risking a defamation lawsuit (i.e. "rolling the dice" as you would say).
“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 SatieRight, because if there’s one thing that’s been highlighted in the past few weeks, it’s how much our society values careful and impartial review of news, as opposed to high octane emotionally charged pieces attacking whatever the present issue is.
Which isn't something that is solved by going from 1.0a to 1.2.
1.2 doesn't particularly help - but it does potentially create massive problems down the road, by inventing the power for Wizards to target either their business competition or cave to external pressure and harm vulnerable groups due to pressure from either an increasingly hostile public or government entities.
Their exposure is essentially materially equivalent under 1.0a or 1.2 - them acting like they need to de-auth 1.0a for the reasons they stated is false, and misleading.
What I've witnessed is both. Does it make sense to throw out democratic principles in response?
“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 fact that the two counter arguments I get to this are bad faith/disingenuous “what are they so scared of” arguments rather neatly highlights why WotC is unlikely to be comfortable trusting the direction of the narrative to the court of public opinion. Especially the invocation of “democracy”, which is a basis for governance, not business.
Bad faith? Seriously?
Hasbro, as a large well known corporation absolutely has significant reputational risk associated with association by disreputable parties. But decades of history suggest that the risk under 1.0a is minimal, 1.0a provides tools to mitigate that risk, and the majority of that risk is obviously external to 1.0a.
Therefore it makes no sense to use that risk as a justification throwing out 1.0a and move to a new version of the license that provides no additional effective mitigation of the risk. Their 'morality clause' is a gigantic hammer that can do minimal good in the long run, because the 'bad guys' have the option of simply avoiding it...
How can WOTC/Hazbro "De-Authorize" a license agreement? If I'm not mistaken with legal stuff, you can't do that... I mean, you can try to make a legal precedent for it but doing so would be bad for a lot of people and reasons.
Starting their own for 6th Edition sure, but all anyone has to do is say their material is for 5th Edition and WOTC can't do anything about it regardless.
Even funnier is the fact that they themselves state that 6th Edition is compatible with 5E; making it even more of a moot point.
They cannot "De-Authorize" a license that has been published and used for decades. That would be the same as any other company deciding to change/remove their license agreement for any product they've ever put out. The amount of chaos that this would create if say some incompetent judge sided with WOTC would open the floodgates for any other company, business, or organization to change and alter agreed-upon contracts/license.
In 2004, Wizards of the Coast addressed what would occur if the license was changed – the OGL "already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway".
5th Edition[edit]
On January 12, 2016, Wizards of the Coast released the 5th edition SRD under v1.0a of the OGL, marking a return to the Open Gaming format.
Additionally, content creators can access an additional license option by publishing through the Dungeon Masters Guild storefront; this license goes a step further by allowing individuals and third party publishers to create and sell content based on specific Wizards of the Coast intellectual property such as the Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Eberron, and the Magic: The Gathering planes. Content creators are allowed to set their own price, however, Wizards of the Coast and OneBookShelf take a 50% cut of the proceeds.
I genuinely cannot tell if you’re being disingenuous with the idea that WotC is only allowed to take a positive outlook towards the future while attacking any positive interpretation of their motives, or if you really believe you can approach the general public with that much good faith.
Their motives are especially transparent.
They talk about wanting to prevent hateful products, but the most significant new limitations are the exclusion of electronic products and severe limitations on VTTs. WotC is clearly attempting to engage in anti-competitive behavior, and using the 'hateful content' issue to justify it.
I've said it before and I've said it again - if the only thing they were adding to 1.2 or whatever it ends up being was stuff dedicated to fighting hateful and abusive content, I could at least entertain the thought that was their actual goal. So long as they're tieing that to their business goals of eliminating competition, they're operating in bad faith on the rest.
If they wanted to 'prove' their good intentions, they could.
Self-governance, you mean.
To be frank, it is not in a business' interest to throw away these principles, either. Appeasing the Sally J Worrywarts that really do argue in bad faith, using threats to reputation in place of reasoned arguments to force compliance with their point of view is a losing proposition. Giving into them only makes them more powerful, and enables them to demand more and more in appeasement, to the point where there is just no appeasing them. Going down this road, business actually gives away it's rights and power, until it has none and is at the mercy of the mob. How does that actually serve business? And finally, if this appeasement also negates the basic freedoms of society at large - if the Sallys can dictate the actions of not only businesses, but also those of every John Q Public - have we not lost self-governance to the mob as well? Is that not important or relevant to you?
“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 Satie1) Preventing Dingbat from dingbatting isn't the point. The point is giving WotC something very concrete they can point to and say "thing happened, but we immediately exercised our power to do this, we take thing very seriously" and have maximum credibility. As they have the most to lose from Dingbat's actions, that is a power they deserve to have.
2) I agree with you that 6f should have protections in order to be fine. A neutral party/review committee is not realistic (who would you get, Mr. Rogers? Paizo?) but I think a "general public" standard should be enough to prevent WotC simply using this as a cudgel, if they would even dare to at this point. And there should be a curative period to give the licensee a chance to fix whatever the problem is before being blacklisted, unless their breach is so egregious that it needs to be addressed asap, such as... well, such as what Ernie tried to do.
On the topic of performative politics, I feel like it’s also relevant that BIPOC creators who have worked with WotC as part of WotC’s diversity-and-inclusion-focused marketing strategy for D&D have talked publicly about being undermined, ignored, and gaslighted by WotC.
Imagine a return to the bust time of 4e, when there was no OGL, and when opportunities to create third party content for Dungeons and Dragons had dried up.
The only opportunity for BIPOC creators to create content for D&D would be to work for a company with a history of tokenization.
The fact that WotC moved away from 3/3.5e’s OGL to 4e’s GSL, a license under which far fewer third party creators wanted to create, was also a contributing factor to the bust time of 4e when compared to the boom time of 3/3.5e and 5e.
Not only was 4e a bad product, there was far less support from third party creators to buoy it.
If the lack of OGL during 4e weren’t a contributing factor, I feel like WotC wouldn’t have brought back the OGL for 5e.
Why do you have such a fundamental misunderstanding of how a person should enter into a business agreement? Risk avoidance is something anyone putting their time and money into something should take into account. Sure, that goes for WoTC but it goes for licensees as well. WoTC's proposed new OGL is just simply far too much risk for a licensee to take on. The arguments that they and you have made just skip right over that. It has a strong gaslighting vibe.