I don't want ableists, homophobes, racists, or transphobes to have power over the tabletop roleplaying game community just as much as I don't want Hasbro to have power over the tabletop roleplaying game community, and Hasbro just freed up a lot of time for me.
just dont play with them lmao
I don't, silly goose, but thank you for the suggestion.
You're such a big helper.
happy to help
genuinely dont get why people are upset at all about this
just dont talk to them lol
That’s not how harmful comments and hateful people work. seeing it, knowing it is there is harmful to people that it effects. You must keep in mind, we aren’t talking about teasing or goofing on people. And we are not talking about people who have necessarily lived a safe experience. We are talking about people who are attacked verbally and sometimes physically for just being themselves. When we allow people to say those things we allow victimization. When we tell people to just ignore it, we trivialize their experience.
Is the solution to such victimization really to disallow people to say things? Does gagging "hateful people" actually make anyone safe?
If you think giving hate a platform doesn’t endanger lives …then you live a privileged existence
Applying your thinking to an OGL is rather flawed. It lacks nuance. It's a tad histrionic. There are a multitude of platforms in gaming for any message. They don't need D&D rules of any kind to make their game. Still, had the "Morality Clause" come into effect, the people you seem to be worried about could then proudly, from their perspective, advertise themselves as "Banned by Hasbro's Wizards" or some such. Let's remember, the Satanic Panic sold a lot of D&D books - it was good for business. Go ahead and make some hateful game taboo and give it free advertising. Heck, you might create a new revenue stream as "red hats" and other "tinfoil hats" decide to take up the "faux patriotic" cause of supporting some strange, niche, alpha misogynistic, white supremacist nonsense game and dabble in role playing for the first time. Why don't you guys pay attention to trends? There aren't any successful hateful rpgs I can think of. Heck, most of what people complain about as wrong in the game is usually built around forcing an analogy a group infers MUST apply to a fictitious element of a fantasy game. And frankly, a lot of those inferences are made without a firm grasp of context.
the existing license has been responsible for a thriving diverse industry. at creation it was intended to be unrevocable and businesses have relied on that to operate. if they want to publish a better license alongside the old one is fine and perhaps most will migrate to it. but to try to deauthorize the existing license has many possibilities to screw over the rest of the existing industry and needs very good reason, communication and care. as well as ample time for the industry to adjust. none of that was present here. i will not be surprised if the next SRD is under a more restrictive license. i'm not in favor of that but changing content in the future does not have the same problems that changing the existing stuff does and ultimately is wizard's prerogative. changing what was intended to be a permanent license for previous srds at this point is no less than acting in bad faith
If that is true, why wasn't 4e as big a success as 3.5 or 5? The game was dying out for much of the early years of the 1.0.
OGL for 3.0/3.5 - year 2000; GSL (more restrictive) for 4e - year 2008 --- A game license for an unpopular rules set can only do so much. People liked 3.5 and they didn't like 4e. It's not complicated. 5e released 2014 --- 4e sold pretty well at first, later on I have no idea but I do know that very few people I knew were talking about it and the store-owners I talked to were not excited by its sales.
the existing license has been responsible for a thriving diverse industry. at creation it was intended to be unrevocable and businesses have relied on that to operate. if they want to publish a better license alongside the old one is fine and perhaps most will migrate to it. but to try to deauthorize the existing license has many possibilities to screw over the rest of the existing industry and needs very good reason, communication and care. as well as ample time for the industry to adjust. none of that was present here. i will not be surprised if the next SRD is under a more restrictive license. i'm not in favor of that but changing content in the future does not have the same problems that changing the existing stuff does and ultimately is wizard's prerogative. changing what was intended to be a permanent license for previous srds at this point is no less than acting in bad faith
If that is true, why wasn't 4e as big a success as 3.5 or 5? The game was dying out for much of the early years of the 1.0.
OGL for 3.0/3.5 - year 2000; GSL (more restrictive) for 4e - year 2008 --- A game license for an unpopular rules set can only do so much. People liked 3.5 and they didn't like 4e. It's not complicated. 5e released 2014 --- 4e sold pretty well at first, later on I have no idea but I do know that very few people I knew were talking about it and the store-owners I talked to were not excited by its sales.
So, for failures it is all WotC and for success it is all the 1.0?
Well if talks like an elephant, walks like an elephant, smells like an elephant, and is just as hardheaded as an elephant then yes Wotc are the ones who have stepped knee deep into the steaming pile of crap. Where an elephant never forgets, Wotc seems to suffer short term memory loss.
Now is the time for them to work with us, provided they understand if they once again try to go back their word they will face a stampede of elephants, and collectively build the next generation of D&D under elements everyone will agree and accept.
I don't want ableists, homophobes, racists, or transphobes to have power over the tabletop roleplaying game community just as much as I don't want Hasbro to have power over the tabletop roleplaying game community, and Hasbro just freed up a lot of time for me.
just dont play with them lmao
I don't, silly goose, but thank you for the suggestion.
You're such a big helper.
happy to help
genuinely dont get why people are upset at all about this
just dont talk to them lol
That’s not how harmful comments and hateful people work. seeing it, knowing it is there is harmful to people that it effects. You must keep in mind, we aren’t talking about teasing or goofing on people. And we are not talking about people who have necessarily lived a safe experience. We are talking about people who are attacked verbally and sometimes physically for just being themselves. When we allow people to say those things we allow victimization. When we tell people to just ignore it, we trivialize their experience.
Is the solution to such victimization really to disallow people to say things? Does gagging "hateful people" actually make anyone safe?
If you think giving hate a platform doesn’t endanger lives …then you live a privileged existence
Perhaps you could respond to what I actually said rather than ...whatever it is you think I said?
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 has and always was about the money. Hasbro looked at companies like Gryphon Saddle Bag, Kobold Press, Critical Role making millions using their IP as the foundation and said "ooooo that really chaps my behind". So they rolled out OGL 1.1. And people were like hmmm thats kind of sus not gonna lie to yah. Then in their infinite brilliance they rolled out 1.2 and said nu uh the whole point was to protect the marginalized people who enjoy our IP from the evil people. And thats what brings us to this forum post where of course like anything else things have been boiled down to strict red vs blue. If you didnt support OGL 1.2 youre an evil facist hateful bigot goose stepping through the streets. Remember kids Wu-Tang already told us, cash rules everything around me.
the existing license has been responsible for a thriving diverse industry. at creation it was intended to be unrevocable and businesses have relied on that to operate. if they want to publish a better license alongside the old one is fine and perhaps most will migrate to it. but to try to deauthorize the existing license has many possibilities to screw over the rest of the existing industry and needs very good reason, communication and care. as well as ample time for the industry to adjust. none of that was present here. i will not be surprised if the next SRD is under a more restrictive license. i'm not in favor of that but changing content in the future does not have the same problems that changing the existing stuff does and ultimately is wizard's prerogative. changing what was intended to be a permanent license for previous srds at this point is no less than acting in bad faith
If that is true, why wasn't 4e as big a success as 3.5 or 5? The game was dying out for much of the early years of the 1.0.
OGL for 3.0/3.5 - year 2000; GSL (more restrictive) for 4e - year 2008 --- A game license for an unpopular rules set can only do so much. People liked 3.5 and they didn't like 4e. It's not complicated. 5e released 2014 --- 4e sold pretty well at first, later on I have no idea but I do know that very few people I knew were talking about it and the store-owners I talked to were not excited by its sales.
So, for failures it is all WotC and for success it is all the 1.0?
I presented facts and some observations about performance. Argue with the other guy about his claim as to the cause.
I will say this. The OGL certainly didn't hurt WoTC before they switched to 4E. And now the cat is out of the bag. The OGL is advantageous to the consumer. WoTC has profited from it in some clear ways. What game was Critical Role playing before they switched to 5E? Pathfinder, which existed because of the OGL. Critical Role has clearly helped spur sales in 5E. Now, other things have played into it as well. For example, Stranger Things. And there has been outreach from WoTC as well. Look at Chris Perkins' involvement in the PAX games. What we can clearly see is that 5E has been able to thrive alongside the OGL.
Since you guys are generally against Wizards being able to protect their players, their IP, their employees, or anything else...let me ask you this. As a hypothetical.
Say you all got your wish, and 1.0a stayed authorized alongside 1.2 BUT!!! This came with a public, widely dispersed statement from Wizards of the Coast to the effect of:
"We are not de-authorizing OGL 1.0a, due to concerns raised by our community. However, going forward Wizards of the Coast intends to operate under OGL 1.2 where and as possible. We publicly disavow OGL 1.0a and all people and products associated with it. No OGL 1.0a product is considered to carry the endorsement or support of Wizards, no OGL 1.0a product will receive support of any kind from Wizards, material or otherwise. Businesses operating under OGL 1.0a will receive no support or offers of further business with Wizards of the Coast under that license and hereby, by using OGL 1.0a, publicly acknowledge and agree to indemnify Wizards against all negative results from their products and will agree not to contest Wizards' assertion that third-party products are uncontrolled and unable to be policed. OGL 1.0a products are considered 'At Own Risk' for both the product seller and the product purchaser, and we hereby reserve every possible right to throw your nasty ass to the ******* sharks and torpedo your business when you inevitably **** up and drag us into your bullshit."
Effectively, you can keep the dumb thing, but it becomes an orphan child Pariah License that is very publicly acknowledged as an inferior and unstable license unable to be associated with legitimate business or legitimate interests. It becomes the 'license' of pirates, hacks, nincomprods, extremists, evil hateful bigots, NFT grifters, and all the other bad actors y'all are championing who try to use D&D and the SRD for Evil, and when they inevitably do something awful Wizards is allowed to bring their full legal might down upon the offender without any censure or kickback from legal experts or The Community. Wizards would be allowed to periodically remind The Community that 1.0a is effectively a rogue license they do not endorse or operate anymore and anyone using it is doing so to the direct and immediate detriment of D&D.
Would that work for you folks? Getting to keep your license under the conditions that it becomes the catchbin for evil hateful untrustworthy bullshit nobody should be able to peddle in the first place?
Obviously Wizards isn't going to do this, because even such announcements would leave them vulnerable to having their IP destroyed by bad actors using D&D to peddle their hatred. But I'm curious what people who think 1.0a should be left in place even if 1.2 goes live think, since that stance is utter madness and completely misses the entire point of this whole fiasco.
Riddle me this, Yuriel: How has this impossibly horrible license allowed WotC to survive and thrive for over 20 years? All anyone asked for was thart 5e products, which have been built over time and have allowed their designers and companies to survive, stay under the 1.0a license. OneD&D can have the OGLSuperYuriel3.9 license. We don't care. Your straw man is just that.
the existing license has been responsible for a thriving diverse industry. at creation it was intended to be unrevocable and businesses have relied on that to operate. if they want to publish a better license alongside the old one is fine and perhaps most will migrate to it. but to try to deauthorize the existing license has many possibilities to screw over the rest of the existing industry and needs very good reason, communication and care. as well as ample time for the industry to adjust. none of that was present here. i will not be surprised if the next SRD is under a more restrictive license. i'm not in favor of that but changing content in the future does not have the same problems that changing the existing stuff does and ultimately is wizard's prerogative. changing what was intended to be a permanent license for previous srds at this point is no less than acting in bad faith
If that is true, why wasn't 4e as big a success as 3.5 or 5? The game was dying out for much of the early years of the 1.0.
OGL for 3.0/3.5 - year 2000; GSL (more restrictive) for 4e - year 2008 --- A game license for an unpopular rules set can only do so much. People liked 3.5 and they didn't like 4e. It's not complicated. 5e released 2014 --- 4e sold pretty well at first, later on I have no idea but I do know that very few people I knew were talking about it and the store-owners I talked to were not excited by its sales.
So, for failures it is all WotC and for success it is all the 1.0?
3.5e - OGL 1.0a --- very popular with the OGL incenting smaller creators to make adventures, which WotC didn't want to support due to low sales to only the DM. 4e - GSL -- Unpopular. Was outsold by third parties (Pathfinder released under 1.0a as a place for disaffected players to go to) 5e - 1.0a -- Once again popular and highly successful as players returned from Pathfinder and third parties like Critical Role and Stranger Things helped popularize it.
I'm not saying GSL killed 4e. But I am saying OGL 1.0a didn't exactly hurt WotC. But locking 4e under an onerous license (GSL), which was very similar to OGL1.1, did hurt third party support and resulted in greater competition against the (then current) version of D&D.
Why on earth would you think that. The two largest 5e streams I know of are both lgbtqia positive places. Or at least seem to be. Why on earth would you think that we are pro-hate. & the problem with banning hateful content is that it precludes hateful villains too. The problem with banning obscene content is that it's puritanical. Nowhere in my heart is a wish to exclude you. It seems like you must have been burned by some ppl before, but that doesn't make the community trash as a whole. It seems like you play here, and if you do, they do have mods here that will ban ppl for bad behavior. So if you are experiencing hate towards in your groups from 5e players, then you should report it. I don't want bigoted ppl in vtt & other community spaces either. If someone publishes a bigoted adventure book do you really think that it will do well? Or, put another way, do you think that the community would not boycott the publisher en masse for blatantly bigoted content aimed at reenforcing bigotry?
I was not here yet bc I was waiting for the new vtt. I'd already signed up and started playing around with the character creation tools for a campaign on another vtt. If there are people getting mad abt changes to the lore to the point of advocating for genocide(fictional though it may be), then I for one would see such ppl banned. But Nothing in 1.2 would have prevented them from being here. This is like saying that you want to sell ur house bc you saw a giant spider in a whole other house. 1.0a is about publishing. It would do absolutely nothing to clear up the forums and I don't see how you could draw the conclusion that it would. Further, that's evidence that they should be paying for more mods instead of their overpriced C-suite that just cost them a ton of market share.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Applying your thinking to an OGL is rather flawed. It lacks nuance. It's a tad histrionic. There are a multitude of platforms in gaming for any message. They don't need D&D rules of any kind to make their game. Still, had the "Morality Clause" come into effect, the people you seem to be worried about could then proudly, from their perspective, advertise themselves as "Banned by Hasbro's Wizards" or some such. Let's remember, the Satanic Panic sold a lot of D&D books - it was good for business. Go ahead and make some hateful game taboo and give it free advertising. Heck, you might create a new revenue stream as "red hats" and other "tinfoil hats" decide to take up the "faux patriotic" cause of supporting some strange, niche, alpha misogynistic, white supremacist nonsense game and dabble in role playing for the first time. Why don't you guys pay attention to trends? There aren't any successful hateful rpgs I can think of. Heck, most of what people complain about as wrong in the game is usually built around forcing an analogy a group infers MUST apply to a fictitious element of a fantasy game. And frankly, a lot of those inferences are made without a firm grasp of context.
OGL for 3.0/3.5 - year 2000; GSL (more restrictive) for 4e - year 2008 --- A game license for an unpopular rules set can only do so much. People liked 3.5 and they didn't like 4e. It's not complicated. 5e released 2014 --- 4e sold pretty well at first, later on I have no idea but I do know that very few people I knew were talking about it and the store-owners I talked to were not excited by its sales.
Well if talks like an elephant, walks like an elephant, smells like an elephant, and is just as hardheaded as an elephant then yes Wotc are the ones who have stepped knee deep into the steaming pile of crap. Where an elephant never forgets, Wotc seems to suffer short term memory loss.
Now is the time for them to work with us, provided they understand if they once again try to go back their word they will face a stampede of elephants, and collectively build the next generation of D&D under elements everyone will agree and accept.
Perhaps you could respond to what I actually said rather than ...whatever it is you think I said?
“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 SatieThis has and always was about the money. Hasbro looked at companies like Gryphon Saddle Bag, Kobold Press, Critical Role making millions using their IP as the foundation and said "ooooo that really chaps my behind". So they rolled out OGL 1.1. And people were like hmmm thats kind of sus not gonna lie to yah. Then in their infinite brilliance they rolled out 1.2 and said nu uh the whole point was to protect the marginalized people who enjoy our IP from the evil people. And thats what brings us to this forum post where of course like anything else things have been boiled down to strict red vs blue. If you didnt support OGL 1.2 youre an evil facist hateful bigot goose stepping through the streets. Remember kids Wu-Tang already told us, cash rules everything around me.
I presented facts and some observations about performance. Argue with the other guy about his claim as to the cause.
I will say this. The OGL certainly didn't hurt WoTC before they switched to 4E. And now the cat is out of the bag. The OGL is advantageous to the consumer. WoTC has profited from it in some clear ways. What game was Critical Role playing before they switched to 5E? Pathfinder, which existed because of the OGL. Critical Role has clearly helped spur sales in 5E. Now, other things have played into it as well. For example, Stranger Things. And there has been outreach from WoTC as well. Look at Chris Perkins' involvement in the PAX games. What we can clearly see is that 5E has been able to thrive alongside the OGL.
Riddle me this, Yuriel: How has this impossibly horrible license allowed WotC to survive and thrive for over 20 years? All anyone asked for was thart 5e products, which have been built over time and have allowed their designers and companies to survive, stay under the 1.0a license. OneD&D can have the OGLSuperYuriel3.9 license. We don't care. Your straw man is just that.
3.5e - OGL 1.0a --- very popular with the OGL incenting smaller creators to make adventures, which WotC didn't want to support due to low sales to only the DM.
4e - GSL -- Unpopular. Was outsold by third parties (Pathfinder released under 1.0a as a place for disaffected players to go to)
5e - 1.0a -- Once again popular and highly successful as players returned from Pathfinder and third parties like Critical Role and Stranger Things helped popularize it.
I'm not saying GSL killed 4e. But I am saying OGL 1.0a didn't exactly hurt WotC. But locking 4e under an onerous license (GSL), which was very similar to OGL1.1, did hurt third party support and resulted in greater competition against the (then current) version of D&D.
Why on earth would you think that. The two largest 5e streams I know of are both lgbtqia positive places. Or at least seem to be. Why on earth would you think that we are pro-hate. & the problem with banning hateful content is that it precludes hateful villains too. The problem with banning obscene content is that it's puritanical. Nowhere in my heart is a wish to exclude you. It seems like you must have been burned by some ppl before, but that doesn't make the community trash as a whole. It seems like you play here, and if you do, they do have mods here that will ban ppl for bad behavior. So if you are experiencing hate towards in your groups from 5e players, then you should report it. I don't want bigoted ppl in vtt & other community spaces either.
If someone publishes a bigoted adventure book do you really think that it will do well? Or, put another way, do you think that the community would not boycott the publisher en masse for blatantly bigoted content aimed at reenforcing bigotry?
I was not here yet bc I was waiting for the new vtt. I'd already signed up and started playing around with the character creation tools for a campaign on another vtt. If there are people getting mad abt changes to the lore to the point of advocating for genocide(fictional though it may be), then I for one would see such ppl banned. But Nothing in 1.2 would have prevented them from being here. This is like saying that you want to sell ur house bc you saw a giant spider in a whole other house. 1.0a is about publishing. It would do absolutely nothing to clear up the forums and I don't see how you could draw the conclusion that it would.
Further, that's evidence that they should be paying for more mods instead of their overpriced C-suite that just cost them a ton of market share.