That is why I tell people that you can NOT create a more inclusive environment by excluding those you disagree with. It is always the least popular voice that needs protection
Amen, brutha!
But isn't WotC's voice the least popular in this entire discussion?
So WotC is a victim?
Of mass prejudice? Yes. Whether the masses are right, wrong, or partially right but overreacting is what is being debated here.
I wish you luck in your rescuer role. Not sure how prejudice fits in though. There was a lot of community goodwill towards them before they decided to go down this road. It appears more like the debate is about the consequences of their actions.
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
I only want people to understand that WotC haven’t been the champions of diversity and inclusion that they claim to be; that WotC justifying the power grab that is the new OGL on the grounds of diversity and inclusion is a sham; and that the new OGL can harm marginalized creators by increasing WotC’s control over the TTRPG industry and decreasing opportunities for third party creators.
"Sham" implies that none of the benefits they've articulated from an OGL with a morality clause are worthwhile, and I disagree with that. Imagine if something like Lamentations of the Flame Princess (published under 1.0a) broke out of its very niche and insular TTRPG audience to get mainstream attention - it's impractical to expect them to simply keep wishing on a star that such things don't rise to a level of prominence where they could hurt the brand. As not just 5e but TTRPGs as a whole grow in mainstream visibility, a potentially costly scandal becomes inevitable - it's no longer if, but when.
I only want people to understand that WotC haven’t been the champions of diversity and inclusion that they claim to be; that WotC justifying the power grab that is the new OGL on the grounds of diversity and inclusion is a sham; and that the new OGL can harm marginalized creators by increasing WotC’s control over the TTRPG industry and decreasing opportunities for third party creators.
"Sham" implies that none of the benefits they've articulated from an OGL with a morality clause are worthwhile, and I disagree with that. Imagine if something like Lamentations of the Flame Princess (published under 1.0a) broke out of its very niche and insular TTRPG audience to get mainstream attention - it's impractical to expect them to simply keep wishing on a star that such things don't rise to a level of prominence where they could hurt the brand. As not just 5e but TTRPGs as a whole grow in mainstream visibility, a potentially costly scandal becomes inevitable - it's no longer if, but when.
Your hypothetical appears rather unlikely considering it hasn't happened and has had plenty of time to do so. The present OGL has been around a while.
It's weird how these posts emphasize safeguarding WotC's brand from scandal over safeguarding people and communities from the harm caused by WotC's power grab.
The rise in popularity of the original and its inevitable fall.
This feels like the period right before the slow fall. The drop from 1 to 2 and the hold at 3.5 till the crash of 4. Are we in the fall from 1 to 2 or the hold at 3.5?
I only want people to understand that WotC haven’t been the champions of diversity and inclusion that they claim to be; that WotC justifying the power grab that is the new OGL on the grounds of diversity and inclusion is a sham; and that the new OGL can harm marginalized creators by increasing WotC’s control over the TTRPG industry and decreasing opportunities for third party creators.
"Sham" implies that none of the benefits they've articulated from an OGL with a morality clause are worthwhile, and I disagree with that. Imagine if something like Lamentations of the Flame Princess (published under 1.0a) broke out of its very niche and insular TTRPG audience to get mainstream attention - it's impractical to expect them to simply keep wishing on a star that such things don't rise to a level of prominence where they could hurt the brand. As not just 5e but TTRPGs as a whole grow in mainstream visibility, a potentially costly scandal becomes inevitable - it's no longer if, but when.
Your hypothetical appears rather unlikely considering it hasn't happened and has had plenty of time to do so. The present OGL has been around a while.
5e is more popular now than its ever been, and a big chunk of that occurred due to the pandemic. "I hasn't happened in the last 20 years" doesn't mean it couldn't happen, the environment was extremely different than it is now even 5 years ago. Even things like Vox Machina are less than 4 years old.
I only want people to understand that WotC haven’t been the champions of diversity and inclusion that they claim to be; that WotC justifying the power grab that is the new OGL on the grounds of diversity and inclusion is a sham; and that the new OGL can harm marginalized creators by increasing WotC’s control over the TTRPG industry and decreasing opportunities for third party creators.
"Sham" implies that none of the benefits they've articulated from an OGL with a morality clause are worthwhile, and I disagree with that. Imagine if something like Lamentations of the Flame Princess (published under 1.0a) broke out of its very niche and insular TTRPG audience to get mainstream attention - it's impractical to expect them to simply keep wishing on a star that such things don't rise to a level of prominence where they could hurt the brand. As not just 5e but TTRPGs as a whole grow in mainstream visibility, a potentially costly scandal becomes inevitable - it's no longer if, but when.
They aren't worthwhile. Wizards is not responsible for what others publish while they also happen to be using Wizards' license. That's a fact. A true friend of the company would defend their rights in that regard. Your imagined inevitable "scandal" scenario is a nothingburger no matter how big it gets. What hurts a "brand" is actually those who threaten defamation in order to enforce a censorship agenda - who pretend to be on a publisher's side, but due to their fundamental rejection of the principles of free speech and their affirmation of collective punishment, are in fact their most insidious enemy. Your words and arguments suggest you are one of those. I hope that is not the case. A keen mind is a terrible thing to waste.
“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
I only want people to understand that WotC haven’t been the champions of diversity and inclusion that they claim to be; that WotC justifying the power grab that is the new OGL on the grounds of diversity and inclusion is a sham; and that the new OGL can harm marginalized creators by increasing WotC’s control over the TTRPG industry and decreasing opportunities for third party creators.
"Sham" implies that none of the benefits they've articulated from an OGL with a morality clause are worthwhile, and I disagree with that. Imagine if something like Lamentations of the Flame Princess (published under 1.0a) broke out of its very niche and insular TTRPG audience to get mainstream attention - it's impractical to expect them to simply keep wishing on a star that such things don't rise to a level of prominence where they could hurt the brand. As not just 5e but TTRPGs as a whole grow in mainstream visibility, a potentially costly scandal becomes inevitable - it's no longer if, but when.
Your hypothetical appears rather unlikely considering it hasn't happened and has had plenty of time to do so. The present OGL has been around a while.
5e is more popular now than its ever been, and a big chunk of that occurred due to the pandemic. "I hasn't happened in the last 20 years" doesn't mean it couldn't happen, the environment was extremely different than it is now even 5 years ago. Even things like Vox Machina are less than 4 years old.
A big chunk of VTT occurred due to the pandemic. 5E was already surging.
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?
Objective? Let's just clear this up out of the gate. Better for who is going to vary from one person to the next and any belief of "better" will always be subjective.
Before I answer your question, though. I have another for you.
What about 1.0a do you consider to be so bad that it needed to be deprecated in the first place? Why do *you* care enough to replace it?
My answer is this: 1.0a was a promise that we would be able to use the previous SRDs to become content creators. We had to accept that in return for this, we would not say the product was compatible with D&D. No branding that associated the product with WotC was allowed. 1.0a was elegant in its simple structure. It accomplished everything both sides wanted and was easy to comprehend.
Can I accept an "objectively" better SRD? Yes, I can. Of course, I've already said it won't be objectively better because I will always see it differently than pretty much anyone who thought the former one had to be deprecated.
What would it take for me to be OK with a new one?
1. It should respect the intent of the previous OGL and allow creators to continue using SRDs prior to the new OGL (which really isn't open).
2. It should respect the legal right of parties to challenge WotC in the event that they mine content for something they can release under their own brand.
3. It should state that Wizards will seek an independent third party to determine if something they have flagged really is offensive or harmful. and they should permit legal challenge to any finding that results in revocation.
4. It should respect our right to live private lives without every action being judged by Wizards.
5. It should make restrictions on NFT a part of the irrevocable license and unambiguously state that it does not allow blockchain products (a magic missile animation is not an NFT).
That's what is acceptable to me. I'm perfectly OK with Wizards wanting to protect the brand but they should not be the sole arbiter of what constitutes harm. I'm OK with them having a new SRD for new products. I am not OK with retroactively invalidating a promise they made 20 years ago. I am certainly not OK with them curtailing legal avenues of challenging any overreach on their part. I an REALLY not OK that they would like to be able to steal other creators work and present it as their own while only allowing a breach of contract challenge that would be nearly impossible to prosecute and would result in a pittance and STILL no author credit on the work.
Will they agree to even a single item I listed? Probably not. And they can't expect my to buy their product, subscribe to their content, or watch their movies until such time as they regain reason. Oh, and my entire table unsubbed from DDB this week. It's good to be a DM sometimes. I laid out my case to them and every one unsubbed.
It's weird how these posts emphasize safeguarding WotC's brand from scandal over safeguarding people and communities from the harm caused by WotC's power grab.
Amazing how people put up counterarguments to any given line of attack. Almost as if there are people calling WotC liars on not just this issue but on others, too.
What I can't understand is defending Hasbro over defending actual people in the TTRPG community, especially actual people who will be (or who already have been) directly harmed by Hasbro's move to tighten its grip on the TTRPG industry.
What I can't understand is defending Hasbro over defending actual people in the TTRPG community, especially actual people who will be (or who already have been) directly harmed by Hasbro's move to tighten its grip on the TTRPG industry.
Not all of us are trapped in black-and-white, us-vs-them thinking.
What would it take for me to be OK with a new one?
1. It should respect the intent of the previous OGL and allow creators to continue using SRDs prior to the new OGL (which really isn't open).
2. It should respect the legal right of parties to challenge WotC in the event that they mine content for something they can release under their own brand.
3. It should state that Wizards will seek an independent third party to determine if something they have flagged really is offensive or harmful. and they should permit legal challenge to any finding that results in revocation.
4. It should respect our right to live private lives without every action being judged by Wizards.
5. It should make restrictions on NFT a part of the irrevocable license and unambiguously state that it does not allow blockchain products (a magic missile animation is not an NFT).
That's what is acceptable to me.
1. The next OGL will do this. They're starting with SRD 5.1, but they've already stated that previous SRDs will be made available as well.
2. Section 3 includes the right to challenge WotC in the case of wrongful ownership claims.
3. There is no neutral third party for this kind of review that would be practical. But there are ways to erode WotC from having absolute power in this clause. We can use language from the d20 System License for example, which refers to "community standards of decency," or language from Paizo's Compatibility License, which includes a "general public" standard. Those should be broad enough to allow this clause to evolve along with our culture, but not make WotC the sole arbiter of decency or use it as an anti-competitor cannon.
4. Define "private lives." If you post something untoward on social media or say something untoward in an interview, people licensing their property to you have a right to be allowed to disassociate their property from you because of those remarks.
5. The goal is for the new license to only apply to TTRPGs and VTTs. That is reasonable, and that will disallow things like video games and NFTs on its own. The tricky part is defining a VTT, which our feedback (and Foundry's) is helping them to do.
It's weird how these posts emphasize safeguarding WotC's brand from scandal over safeguarding people and communities from the harm caused by WotC's power grab.
Amazing how people put up counterarguments to any given line of attack. Almost as if there are people calling WotC liars on not just this issue but on others, too.
That is what happens when a company is found to be untrustworthy. Their customers start to re-examine other things the company has done.
What I can't understand is defending Hasbro over defending actual people in the TTRPG community, especially actual people who will be (or who already have been) directly harmed by Hasbro's move to tighten its grip on the TTRPG industry.
Not all of us are trapped in black-and-white, us-vs-them thinking.
What would it take for me to be OK with a new one?
1. It should respect the intent of the previous OGL and allow creators to continue using SRDs prior to the new OGL (which really isn't open).
2. It should respect the legal right of parties to challenge WotC in the event that they mine content for something they can release under their own brand.
3. It should state that Wizards will seek an independent third party to determine if something they have flagged really is offensive or harmful. and they should permit legal challenge to any finding that results in revocation.
4. It should respect our right to live private lives without every action being judged by Wizards.
5. It should make restrictions on NFT a part of the irrevocable license and unambiguously state that it does not allow blockchain products (a magic missile animation is not an NFT).
That's what is acceptable to me.
1. The next OGL will do this. They're starting with SRD 5.1, but they've already stated that previous SRDs will be made available as well.
2. Section 3 includes the right to challenge WotC in the case of wrongful ownership claims.
3. There is no neutral third party for this kind of review that would be practical. But there are ways to erode WotC from having absolute power in this clause. We can use language from the d20 System License for example, which refers to "community standards of decency," or language from Paizo's Compatibility License, which includes a "general public" standard. Those should be broad enough to allow this clause to evolve along with our culture, but not make WotC the sole arbiter of decency or use it as an anti-competitor cannon.
4. Define "private lives." If you post something untoward on social media or say something untoward in an interview, people licensing their property to you have a right to be allowed to disassociate their property from you because of those remarks.
5. The goal is for the new license to only apply to TTRPGs and VTTs. That is reasonable, and that will disallow things like video games and NFTs on its own. The tricky part is defining a VTT, which our feedback (and Foundry's) is helping them to do.
A number of actual lawyers have explained the flaws in what Hasbro/WoTC have been shooting for. I wish you would listen to them.
A number of actual lawyers have said a number of different things about this case as often happens, particularly with civil law. Honestly, citing any one lawyer or group of lawyers as an appeal to authority is more informed opinion than fact.
A number of actual lawyers have said a number of different things about this case as often happens, particularly with civil law. Honestly, citing any one lawyer or group of lawyers as an appeal to authority is more informed opinion than fact.
I see you are trotting out the internet list of logical fallacies as a shorthand. It is really a ham-handed response. What did I suggest? I did not suggest listening to one specific lawyer, did I? Why don't you deal with what I actually stated rather than what you were anticipating? The subtext of my statement was my belief that PsyrenXY is insufficiently prepared to understand licensing, contract law, and so forth and should do some more research.
Personally, I've listened to a number of attorneys to reach my understanding of the issues involved. I also have an educational background that has led me to be reasonably conversant with very basic legal principles. So, I very much questioned the "irrevocable" angle considering the context of previous WoTC statements concerning the present OGL and the very wording of the OGL. I also very much questioned the leaked "draft" of their new OGL and their second proposal on a new OGL in several ways; its deceptive nature, overreach, and very one-sided dynamic.
Now, I'm not asking you to accept my authority. I just want you to understand that your attempts to be the voice of reason fairly demonstrate, at least to me thanks to my background, that you don't come into this with any particular specialized knowledge and rather freely applying "general principles" to very specific issues in a way that I don't think is particularly appropriate to the specifics.
What I can't understand is defending Hasbro over defending actual people in the TTRPG community, especially actual people who will be (or who already have been) directly harmed by Hasbro's move to tighten its grip on the TTRPG industry.
Not all of us are trapped in black-and-white, us-vs-them thinking.
What would it take for me to be OK with a new one?
1. It should respect the intent of the previous OGL and allow creators to continue using SRDs prior to the new OGL (which really isn't open).
2. It should respect the legal right of parties to challenge WotC in the event that they mine content for something they can release under their own brand.
3. It should state that Wizards will seek an independent third party to determine if something they have flagged really is offensive or harmful. and they should permit legal challenge to any finding that results in revocation.
4. It should respect our right to live private lives without every action being judged by Wizards.
5. It should make restrictions on NFT a part of the irrevocable license and unambiguously state that it does not allow blockchain products (a magic missile animation is not an NFT).
That's what is acceptable to me.
1. The next OGL will do this. They're starting with SRD 5.1, but they've already stated that previous SRDs will be made available as well.
2. Section 3 includes the right to challenge WotC in the case of wrongful ownership claims.
3. There is no neutral third party for this kind of review that would be practical. But there are ways to erode WotC from having absolute power in this clause. We can use language from the d20 System License for example, which refers to "community standards of decency," or language from Paizo's Compatibility License, which includes a "general public" standard. Those should be broad enough to allow this clause to evolve along with our culture, but not make WotC the sole arbiter of decency or use it as an anti-competitor cannon.
4. Define "private lives." If you post something untoward on social media or say something untoward in an interview, people licensing their property to you have a right to be allowed to disassociate their property from you because of those remarks.
5. The goal is for the new license to only apply to TTRPGs and VTTs. That is reasonable, and that will disallow things like video games and NFTs on its own. The tricky part is defining a VTT, which our feedback (and Foundry's) is helping them to do.
A number of actual lawyers have explained the flaws in what Hasbro/WoTC have been shooting for. I wish you would listen to them.
Thanks for the suggestion but I've done that already. It does not stop me from reaching a conclusion that differs from your own. If they want to create a new OGL, that's fine with me. They should honor their previous commitments to OGL 1.0a for the SRDs that used it. 1.2 should be proffered for the SRDs going forward.
And that would probably about do it for me. I'm not going to play their new video game D&D so I'd be mostly unaffected. 5E was already too WoW-ish for my taste, though I'm glad It existed as it brought me back into the TTRPG scene.
I am offended at the SRD in its current state but it would mean less to me if the already existing OGL was not needlessly threatened. and I stand by my belief that WotC has made it possible for them to steal content at will.
If they refuse to see reason, I think I'll feel relatively safe buying some puts on HAS.
What I can't understand is defending Hasbro over defending actual people in the TTRPG community, especially actual people who will be (or who already have been) directly harmed by Hasbro's move to tighten its grip on the TTRPG industry.
Not all of us are trapped in black-and-white, us-vs-them thinking.
What would it take for me to be OK with a new one?
1. It should respect the intent of the previous OGL and allow creators to continue using SRDs prior to the new OGL (which really isn't open).
2. It should respect the legal right of parties to challenge WotC in the event that they mine content for something they can release under their own brand.
3. It should state that Wizards will seek an independent third party to determine if something they have flagged really is offensive or harmful. and they should permit legal challenge to any finding that results in revocation.
4. It should respect our right to live private lives without every action being judged by Wizards.
5. It should make restrictions on NFT a part of the irrevocable license and unambiguously state that it does not allow blockchain products (a magic missile animation is not an NFT).
That's what is acceptable to me.
1. The next OGL will do this. They're starting with SRD 5.1, but they've already stated that previous SRDs will be made available as well.
2. Section 3 includes the right to challenge WotC in the case of wrongful ownership claims.
3. There is no neutral third party for this kind of review that would be practical. But there are ways to erode WotC from having absolute power in this clause. We can use language from the d20 System License for example, which refers to "community standards of decency," or language from Paizo's Compatibility License, which includes a "general public" standard. Those should be broad enough to allow this clause to evolve along with our culture, but not make WotC the sole arbiter of decency or use it as an anti-competitor cannon.
4. Define "private lives." If you post something untoward on social media or say something untoward in an interview, people licensing their property to you have a right to be allowed to disassociate their property from you because of those remarks.
5. The goal is for the new license to only apply to TTRPGs and VTTs. That is reasonable, and that will disallow things like video games and NFTs on its own. The tricky part is defining a VTT, which our feedback (and Foundry's) is helping them to do.
A number of actual lawyers have explained the flaws in what Hasbro/WoTC have been shooting for. I wish you would listen to them.
Thanks for the suggestion but I've done that already. It does not stop me from reaching a conclusion that differs from your own. If they want to create a new OGL, that's fine with me. They should honor their previous commitments to OGL 1.0a for the SRDs that used it. 1.2 should be proffered for the SRDs going forward.
And that would probably about do it for me. I'm not going to play their new video game D&D so I'd be mostly unaffected. 5E was already too WoW-ish for my taste, though I'm glad It existed as it brought me back into the TTRPG scene.
I am offended at the SRD in its current state but it would mean less to me if the already existing OGL was not needlessly threatened. and I stand by my belief that WotC has made it possible for them to steal content at will.
If they refuse to see reason, I think I'll feel relatively safe buying some puts on H
What I can't understand is defending Hasbro over defending actual people in the TTRPG community, especially actual people who will be (or who already have been) directly harmed by Hasbro's move to tighten its grip on the TTRPG industry.
Not all of us are trapped in black-and-white, us-vs-them thinking.
What would it take for me to be OK with a new one?
1. It should respect the intent of the previous OGL and allow creators to continue using SRDs prior to the new OGL (which really isn't open).
2. It should respect the legal right of parties to challenge WotC in the event that they mine content for something they can release under their own brand.
3. It should state that Wizards will seek an independent third party to determine if something they have flagged really is offensive or harmful. and they should permit legal challenge to any finding that results in revocation.
4. It should respect our right to live private lives without every action being judged by Wizards.
5. It should make restrictions on NFT a part of the irrevocable license and unambiguously state that it does not allow blockchain products (a magic missile animation is not an NFT).
That's what is acceptable to me.
1. The next OGL will do this. They're starting with SRD 5.1, but they've already stated that previous SRDs will be made available as well.
2. Section 3 includes the right to challenge WotC in the case of wrongful ownership claims.
3. There is no neutral third party for this kind of review that would be practical. But there are ways to erode WotC from having absolute power in this clause. We can use language from the d20 System License for example, which refers to "community standards of decency," or language from Paizo's Compatibility License, which includes a "general public" standard. Those should be broad enough to allow this clause to evolve along with our culture, but not make WotC the sole arbiter of decency or use it as an anti-competitor cannon.
4. Define "private lives." If you post something untoward on social media or say something untoward in an interview, people licensing their property to you have a right to be allowed to disassociate their property from you because of those remarks.
5. The goal is for the new license to only apply to TTRPGs and VTTs. That is reasonable, and that will disallow things like video games and NFTs on its own. The tricky part is defining a VTT, which our feedback (and Foundry's) is helping them to do.
A number of actual lawyers have explained the flaws in what Hasbro/WoTC have been shooting for. I wish you would listen to them.
Thanks for the suggestion but I've done that already. It does not stop me from reaching a conclusion that differs from your own. If they want to create a new OGL, that's fine with me. They should honor their previous commitments to OGL 1.0a for the SRDs that used it. 1.2 should be proffered for the SRDs going forward.
And that would probably about do it for me. I'm not going to play their new video game D&D so I'd be mostly unaffected. 5E was already too WoW-ish for my taste, though I'm glad It existed as it brought me back into the TTRPG scene.
I am offended at the SRD in its current state but it would mean less to me if the already existing OGL was not needlessly threatened. and I stand by my belief that WotC has made it possible for them to steal content at will.
If they refuse to see reason, I think I'll feel relatively safe buying some puts on HAS.
How am I wrong? 5e is more vulnerable than it's ever been in its lifetime to hateful people and bad actors. Wizards is legally incapable of mounting any sort of legal effort against peddlers of hate, discrimination, and exclusionism now. The only defense D&D has against hateful content now is "The Community", and frankly nothing about this debacle has shaken my conviction that this community would welcome those things into the hobby. This community wants hatred, discrimination, and exclusionism in their game, and for anyone experiencing those things to leave the hobby and not return. You all have made it abundantly clear - people like me, people like my friends?
I wish you luck in your rescuer role. Not sure how prejudice fits in though. There was a lot of community goodwill towards them before they decided to go down this road. It appears more like the debate is about the consequences of their actions.
“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"Sham" implies that none of the benefits they've articulated from an OGL with a morality clause are worthwhile, and I disagree with that. Imagine if something like Lamentations of the Flame Princess (published under 1.0a) broke out of its very niche and insular TTRPG audience to get mainstream attention - it's impractical to expect them to simply keep wishing on a star that such things don't rise to a level of prominence where they could hurt the brand. As not just 5e but TTRPGs as a whole grow in mainstream visibility, a potentially costly scandal becomes inevitable - it's no longer if, but when.
Your hypothetical appears rather unlikely considering it hasn't happened and has had plenty of time to do so. The present OGL has been around a while.
It's weird how these posts emphasize safeguarding WotC's brand from scandal over safeguarding people and communities from the harm caused by WotC's power grab.
The rise of D&D reminds of its past history.
The rise in popularity of the original and its inevitable fall.
This feels like the period right before the slow fall.
The drop from 1 to 2 and the hold at 3.5 till the crash of 4.
Are we in the fall from 1 to 2 or the hold at 3.5?
5e is more popular now than its ever been, and a big chunk of that occurred due to the pandemic. "I hasn't happened in the last 20 years" doesn't mean it couldn't happen, the environment was extremely different than it is now even 5 years ago. Even things like Vox Machina are less than 4 years old.
They aren't worthwhile. Wizards is not responsible for what others publish while they also happen to be using Wizards' license. That's a fact. A true friend of the company would defend their rights in that regard. Your imagined inevitable "scandal" scenario is a nothingburger no matter how big it gets. What hurts a "brand" is actually those who threaten defamation in order to enforce a censorship agenda - who pretend to be on a publisher's side, but due to their fundamental rejection of the principles of free speech and their affirmation of collective punishment, are in fact their most insidious enemy. Your words and arguments suggest you are one of those. I hope that is not the case. A keen mind is a terrible thing to waste.
“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 SatieA big chunk of VTT occurred due to the pandemic. 5E was already surging.
Objective? Let's just clear this up out of the gate. Better for who is going to vary from one person to the next and any belief of "better" will always be subjective.
Before I answer your question, though. I have another for you.
What about 1.0a do you consider to be so bad that it needed to be deprecated in the first place? Why do *you* care enough to replace it?
My answer is this: 1.0a was a promise that we would be able to use the previous SRDs to become content creators. We had to accept that in return for this, we would not say the product was compatible with D&D. No branding that associated the product with WotC was allowed. 1.0a was elegant in its simple structure. It accomplished everything both sides wanted and was easy to comprehend.
Can I accept an "objectively" better SRD? Yes, I can. Of course, I've already said it won't be objectively better because I will always see it differently than pretty much anyone who thought the former one had to be deprecated.
What would it take for me to be OK with a new one?
1. It should respect the intent of the previous OGL and allow creators to continue using SRDs prior to the new OGL (which really isn't open).
2. It should respect the legal right of parties to challenge WotC in the event that they mine content for something they can release under their own brand.
3. It should state that Wizards will seek an independent third party to determine if something they have flagged really is offensive or harmful. and they should permit legal challenge to any finding that results in revocation.
4. It should respect our right to live private lives without every action being judged by Wizards.
5. It should make restrictions on NFT a part of the irrevocable license and unambiguously state that it does not allow blockchain products (a magic missile animation is not an NFT).
That's what is acceptable to me. I'm perfectly OK with Wizards wanting to protect the brand but they should not be the sole arbiter of what constitutes harm. I'm OK with them having a new SRD for new products. I am not OK with retroactively invalidating a promise they made 20 years ago. I am certainly not OK with them curtailing legal avenues of challenging any overreach on their part. I an REALLY not OK that they would like to be able to steal other creators work and present it as their own while only allowing a breach of contract challenge that would be nearly impossible to prosecute and would result in a pittance and STILL no author credit on the work.
Will they agree to even a single item I listed? Probably not. And they can't expect my to buy their product, subscribe to their content, or watch their movies until such time as they regain reason. Oh, and my entire table unsubbed from DDB this week. It's good to be a DM sometimes. I laid out my case to them and every one unsubbed.
What I can't understand is defending Hasbro over defending actual people in the TTRPG community, especially actual people who will be (or who already have been) directly harmed by Hasbro's move to tighten its grip on the TTRPG industry.
Not all of us are trapped in black-and-white, us-vs-them thinking.
1. The next OGL will do this. They're starting with SRD 5.1, but they've already stated that previous SRDs will be made available as well.
2. Section 3 includes the right to challenge WotC in the case of wrongful ownership claims.
3. There is no neutral third party for this kind of review that would be practical. But there are ways to erode WotC from having absolute power in this clause. We can use language from the d20 System License for example, which refers to "community standards of decency," or language from Paizo's Compatibility License, which includes a "general public" standard. Those should be broad enough to allow this clause to evolve along with our culture, but not make WotC the sole arbiter of decency or use it as an anti-competitor cannon.
4. Define "private lives." If you post something untoward on social media or say something untoward in an interview, people licensing their property to you have a right to be allowed to disassociate their property from you because of those remarks.
5. The goal is for the new license to only apply to TTRPGs and VTTs. That is reasonable, and that will disallow things like video games and NFTs on its own. The tricky part is defining a VTT, which our feedback (and Foundry's) is helping them to do.
That is what happens when a company is found to be untrustworthy. Their customers start to re-examine other things the company has done.
There’s a power dynamic between Hasbro and the people that Hasbro is harming, and that power is concentrated with Hasbro.
No one at Hasbro is going to lose their business, their primary income, or supplementary income over this, but the people who Hasbro is harming will.
When the people that Hasbro is harming band together, that gives them power to push back, and they’re pushing back out of necessity.
A number of actual lawyers have explained the flaws in what Hasbro/WoTC have been shooting for. I wish you would listen to them.
A number of actual lawyers have said a number of different things about this case as often happens, particularly with civil law. Honestly, citing any one lawyer or group of lawyers as an appeal to authority is more informed opinion than fact.
I see you are trotting out the internet list of logical fallacies as a shorthand. It is really a ham-handed response. What did I suggest? I did not suggest listening to one specific lawyer, did I? Why don't you deal with what I actually stated rather than what you were anticipating? The subtext of my statement was my belief that PsyrenXY is insufficiently prepared to understand licensing, contract law, and so forth and should do some more research.
Personally, I've listened to a number of attorneys to reach my understanding of the issues involved. I also have an educational background that has led me to be reasonably conversant with very basic legal principles. So, I very much questioned the "irrevocable" angle considering the context of previous WoTC statements concerning the present OGL and the very wording of the OGL. I also very much questioned the leaked "draft" of their new OGL and their second proposal on a new OGL in several ways; its deceptive nature, overreach, and very one-sided dynamic.
Now, I'm not asking you to accept my authority. I just want you to understand that your attempts to be the voice of reason fairly demonstrate, at least to me thanks to my background, that you don't come into this with any particular specialized knowledge and rather freely applying "general principles" to very specific issues in a way that I don't think is particularly appropriate to the specifics.
Thanks for the suggestion but I've done that already. It does not stop me from reaching a conclusion that differs from your own. If they want to create a new OGL, that's fine with me. They should honor their previous commitments to OGL 1.0a for the SRDs that used it. 1.2 should be proffered for the SRDs going forward.
And that would probably about do it for me. I'm not going to play their new video game D&D so I'd be mostly unaffected. 5E was already too WoW-ish for my taste, though I'm glad It existed as it brought me back into the TTRPG scene.
I am offended at the SRD in its current state but it would mean less to me if the already existing OGL was not needlessly threatened. and I stand by my belief that WotC has made it possible for them to steal content at will.
If they refuse to see reason, I think I'll feel relatively safe buying some puts on HAS.
My reply was directed at PsyrenXY.
How am I wrong? 5e is more vulnerable than it's ever been in its lifetime to hateful people and bad actors. Wizards is legally incapable of mounting any sort of legal effort against peddlers of hate, discrimination, and exclusionism now. The only defense D&D has against hateful content now is "The Community", and frankly nothing about this debacle has shaken my conviction that this community would welcome those things into the hobby. This community wants hatred, discrimination, and exclusionism in their game, and for anyone experiencing those things to leave the hobby and not return. You all have made it abundantly clear - people like me, people like my friends?
We're not welcome in D&D anymore.
Please do not contact or message me.
For clarification only Rule303 who were you talking to?