My thoughts: It's a barrier and signaling that has been common with big corporate c-suite types to use to mask real motives and hide behind. When you see stuff like this, there is always a catch involving something that is bad for the fans, the property, employees, etc. And if you critique it, the "isms/ist/phobes" follow.
[...]
This is nothing but an attempt to use real hardships as a barrier and a weapon kill anything they can't control.
Edits: For clarity and clean up of my point.
This is a tactic called poisoning the well, and is both unfair and I'm pretty it's untrue at this point. I'm usually pretty skeptical of corporate motives, but in this case, I can definitely see where they're coming from.
Recently there was a case of another company publishing racist material (as in, actually racist material that claims that real world races are superior and inferior to one another, not in-game racism or having the mere appearance of racism) that reflected back on WotC. That has resulted in a lawsuit which, if it goes to trial, will be incredibly expensive for WotC. It won't bankrupt them, but it's not going to be a couple of dollars either.
WotC are going to want to make it very plain that they have the right to withdraw their IP in such cases. That is best achieved by having it in clear writing in the licence rather than by inference. There is a reason why licences.exist, and it's so the company won't have their rights questioned when they exercise them, resulting in legal fees and, to be frank, an awful lot of distraction. They don't want to spend their time in court proving that they don't have to have their IP used in conjunction with distasteful material, they'd rather be in their office creating the next splatbook.
Now, I'm on the side of restricting this power because the nature of corporations and the nature of the market means that it's likely to get abused at some point to control something they shouldn't. In the interests of decency, it's important to note that it's borne out of good faith at the moment - even if we need to ensure that it's protected against bad faith actions in the future.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I would never sign any such agreement. I understand that their heart is in the right place, but it's short-sighted. If you want to change the world for the better, lead by example, don't try to rule with an iron fist as the result is that you become the very problem you're trying to solve. With this sort of OGL Wizards of the Coasts are the clear bad guy. They have decided what others are doing is "harmful", meanwhile they are printing racist crap in books like Spelljammer.
Get your own house in order Wizards!
Isn't 'Iron fist' just being assumed here? Who have they actually told to change anything in that regard?
The issue I have here is that people are acting like them having ANY ability to say 'that's too far' whatsoever as equivalent to 'They'll shut EVERYONE down!!!!'
Sort of yeah. I agree with the statement that they should have no ability to affect 3rd party content in any way nor any power to shut anyone down ever. I don't care if someone puts out a module where you play Nazi's running concentration camps... do I find that offensive? Hell yeah. Would I buy it... hell no? Do I defend the right of someone to create such content... you bet your ass I will. I have the right to be offended, I have the right to not buy things or speak out against things, I don't have the right to block and outlaw someones right to create whatever content they want.
Its not Wizards of the Coasts job to govern 3rd party content, they can and should govern their own content, lead by example, create whatever version of D&D that fits their vision/ethics, but when it comes to the rest of the community and the content they create, that is up to us to govern ourselves and we do so with our wallets and our voice, not by outlawing things we don't agree with.
Sort of yeah. I agree with the statement that they should have no ability to affect 3rd party content in any way nor any power to shut anyone down ever. I don't care if someone puts out a module where you play Nazi's running concentration camps... do I find that offensive? Hell yeah. Would I buy it... hell no? Do I defend the right of someone to create such content... you bet your ass I will. I have the right to be offended, I have the right to not buy things or speak out against things, I don't have the right to block and outlaw someones right to create whatever content they want.
Its not Wizards of the Coasts job to govern 3rd party content, they can and should govern their own content, lead by example, create whatever version of D&D that fits their vision/ethics, but when it comes to the rest of the community and the content they create, that is up to us to govern ourselves and we do so with our wallets and our voice, not by outlawing things we don't agree with.
Such a module would be illegal under the hate speech laws of several actual countries, so WotC would likely not have to do a thing about them, themselves. However if that module was being advertised in a way associating it with WotC and their games, you feel that WotC should not be allowed to disavow themselves of any connection with it and tell them to stop making that association?
Not any truly free countries... but I digress....
You don't need an OGL to defend yourself against someone claiming to be associated with Wizards of the Coast if they are not, that is what copyright and trademark laws are for.
Sort of yeah. I agree with the statement that they should have no ability to affect 3rd party content in any way nor any power to shut anyone down ever. I don't care if someone puts out a module where you play Nazi's running concentration camps... do I find that offensive? Hell yeah. Would I buy it... hell no? Do I defend the right of someone to create such content... you bet your ass I will. I have the right to be offended, I have the right to not buy things or speak out against things, I don't have the right to block and outlaw someones right to create whatever content they want.
Its not Wizards of the Coasts job to govern 3rd party content, they can and should govern their own content, lead by example, create whatever version of D&D that fits their vision/ethics, but when it comes to the rest of the community and the content they create, that is up to us to govern ourselves and we do so with our wallets and our voice, not by outlawing things we don't agree with.
Such a module would be illegal under the hate speech laws of several actual countries, so WotC would likely not have to do a thing about them, themselves. However if that module was being advertised in a way associating it with WotC and their games, you feel that WotC should not be allowed to disavow themselves of any connection with it and tell them to stop making that association?
Not any truly free countries... but I digress....
You don't need an OGL to defend yourself against someone claiming to be associated with Wizards of the Coast if they are not, that is what copyright and trademark laws are for.
You mean those laws which proponents of the 1.0 claim WotC has surrendered all right to turn to?
I'm not going to defend every stupid thing any random proponent of 1.0 claim or believes. What I'm saying is that you don't need an OGL to protect your intellectual property. The OGL is there primarily as a courtesy to content creators to be more specific about which parts of that property can and can't be used, its not there to tell people what sort of content they can and can't create. That is the difference between 1.0 and everything we have seen since.
So that WotC can't just stifle competitors using their arbitrary justifications for what constitutes hate and discriminatory content (especially given they have shown they are incapable of doing so given both Curse of Strahd and Spelljammer: Adventures in Space), they should be required to give said review and determination process to a third party independent non profit organisation that specialises in identifying and combatting hate. Give the power to somebody like the Southern Poverty Law Centre to manage, it shouldn't be WotC.
I'm not going to defend every stupid thing any random proponent of 1.0 claim or believes. What I'm saying is that you don't need an OGL to protect your intellectual property. The OGL is there primarily as a courtesy to content creators to be more specific about which parts of that property can and can't be used, its not there to tell people what sort of content they can and can't create. That is the difference between 1.0 and everything we have seen since.
The issue here is that there is enough in the OGL that WotC may well have a tough expensive court case to slog through to get any enforcement, potentially in each and every such case depending on how different the facts are in each.
At least one prominent lawyer out there seems to think that works in their favour since many companies they would go up against would not be able to afford to defend, but there is an argument that works both ways, that it is not a given they would get back more than they would spend, especially in the more marginal cases.
And they would not necessarily even win.
Their ability to tell people what they can and cannot create is limited to how far their copyright actually extends and by costs of trying to enforce any given case. It is like the difference between things being illegal on the books, and those laws actually being used in every case in practice. When is the last time you have heard of anyone prosecuted for jaywalking?
How would an OGL change any of that? I mean if someone is willing to break copyright and trademark laws, why would an OGL stop them?
It's not like there is a publishing police that validates whether or not you are following the rules. People are going to publish whatever they want to publish and if Wizards of the Coasts wants to shut them down, OGL or not, they would have to take them to court and or follow the usual processes. The fact that it's an expensive or counter productive to take people to court is neither here or there, OGL or not.
The main principle behind the OGL is instruction, guidelines for people who want to follow the rules, it's no more or less enforceable than any other copyright or trademark contract. The point here is that the vast majority of publishers will comply to the OGL whatever it is. So if the OGL says "hey you can't publish certain types of content", than people will not publish it.
In that notion is what I have a problem with. Wizards of the Coast should not be telling people what sort of content they can or can't publish, this will stifle content creators.
This is also the part I don't understand about Wizards approach here. This 1.2 OGL is really restrictive, the result will be fewer 3rd party publishers making content for D&D but it will not result in fewer 3rd party publishers in general. Quite to the contrary, the most likely outcome is that 3rd party publishers that are making content for 5e today, will be making content for Pathfinder 2nd edition tomorrow, simply choosing the next best thing. This in turn will shrink the community, shrink the audience and push people away from D&D into other games.
Even if they successfully execute and publish this OGL, its going to be bad for D&D. I mean I'm a 3rd party publisher, the fact that this OGL is even being considered has me thinking I will release my material for PF2 in the future instead of D&D because while the audience might be smaller, at least I can publish it without having to worry about Wizards of the Coasts bullshit in the future.
So that WotC can't just stifle competitors using their arbitrary justifications for what constitutes hate and discriminatory content (especially given they have shown they are incapable of doing so given both Curse of Strahd and Spelljammer: Adventures in Space), they should be required to give said review and determination process to a third party independent non profit organisation that specialises in identifying and combatting hate. Give the power to somebody like the Southern Poverty Law Centre to manage, it shouldn't be WotC.
They did change Strahd though <confused>. If they are not perfect, themselves, why do you think that would make them more strict when it comes to others rather than less?
Because it is not only a matter of policing heteful etc. etc. content, but is a backdoor for them to police anything they might not like, since they would be the sole judges of what contitutes infringment of that clause of the OGL.
Under this OGL version, they could effectively shut down creators they do not like for whatever reason, claiming that their content is hateful, discriminatory, racist or whathave you, and the content creator would not be able to do anything about it.
So that WotC can't just stifle competitors using their arbitrary justifications for what constitutes hate and discriminatory content (especially given they have shown they are incapable of doing so given both Curse of Strahd and Spelljammer: Adventures in Space), they should be required to give said review and determination process to a third party independent non profit organisation that specialises in identifying and combatting hate. Give the power to somebody like the Southern Poverty Law Centre to manage, it shouldn't be WotC.
They did change Strahd though <confused>. If they are not perfect, themselves, why do you think that would make them more strict when it comes to others rather than less?
Because it is not only a matter of policing heteful etc. etc. content, but is a backdoor for them to police anything they might not like, since they would be the sole judges of what contitutes infringment of that clause of the OGL.
Under this OGL version, they could effectively shut down creators they do not like for whatever reason, claiming that their content is hateful, discriminatory, racist or whathave you, and the content creator would not be able to do anything about it.
Edit: corrected typos
Not just their content, but their behaviour too. Have you liked "wrong" comment on social media, bang "you are engaging in a stuff that...", are you into BDSM/onlyfans/whatever, bang "that's engaging in an obscene activity" (because whoever is at the time in charge of the wotc inqusition thinks so).
And it doesn't matter whether there is a history of wotc considering anything of that problematic now. For the last 22 years, there wasn't any history of wotc trying to pull the ogl 1.0a rug either.
Allowing this kind of power to the "good and wise" people so they can do all the benevolent things is a problem because eventually the "mean and foolish" will find their way to have that power too.
Yup, people are talking about potentionaly problematic 3PP content and saying that WotC need to protect themselves (which i think is nonsense anyway), but are missing this little gem "or engage in conduct that is...".
Exactly as you've said, You are considered Obscene in half of the world. Does that mean no OGL for you?
Do you have ANY examples of anything from WotC displaying prejudice against anyone trans? They are cleaning up wording in their products to eliminate prejudices.
Half the world may consider such aspects of reality obscene, but WotC seems clearly in the other half.
What we do have is a company that has gone back on its word considering the original OGL. Why should we blindly trust them and endorse their claim of all the leverage when it is clear that their interpretation of the law concerning their asserted rights is rather debatable? What 'objectionable gaming products' have harmed Hasbro/WoTC? This 'remedy' of theirs is rather extreme for an unrealized problem that has a simpler solution.
I would never sign any such agreement. I understand that their heart is in the right place, but it's short-sighted. If you want to change the world for the better, lead by example, don't try to rule with an iron fist as the result is that you become the very problem you're trying to solve. With this sort of OGL Wizards of the Coasts are the clear bad guy. They have decided what others are doing is "harmful", meanwhile they are printing racist crap in books like Spelljammer.
Get your own house in order Wizards!
Isn't 'Iron fist' just being assumed here? Who have they actually told to change anything in that regard?
The issue I have here is that people are acting like them having ANY ability to say 'that's too far' whatsoever as equivalent to 'They'll shut EVERYONE down!!!!'
I think what is assumed is that it's another clause in their new "license" that ALLOWS them rule with an iron fist. Whether they do or don't is another matter. However, look at what leaked. Look at the psychology behind what leaked. Tell me you think they have their heads on straight for the long view based on what they originally put in their new OGL. Do you think they suddenly have been enlightened because we complained OR do you think they are trying to maximize their goals, giving as little as they can, while mollifying those who unsubscribed.
My thoughts: It's a barrier and signaling that has been common with big corporate c-suite types to use to mask real motives and hide behind. When you see stuff like this, there is always a catch involving something that is bad for the fans, the property, employees, etc. And if you critique it, the "isms/ist/phobes" follow.
[...]
This is nothing but an attempt to use real hardships as a barrier and a weapon kill anything they can't control.
Edits: For clarity and clean up of my point.
This is a tactic called poisoning the well, and is both unfair and I'm pretty it's untrue at this point. I'm usually pretty skeptical of corporate motives, but in this case, I can definitely see where they're coming from.
Recently there was a case of another company publishing racist material (as in, actually racist material that claims that real world races are superior and inferior to one another, not in-game racism or having the mere appearance of racism) that reflected back on WotC. That has resulted in a lawsuit which, if it goes to trial, will be incredibly expensive for WotC. It won't bankrupt them, but it's not going to be a couple of dollars either.
WotC are going to want to make it very plain that they have the right to withdraw their IP in such cases. That is best achieved by having it in clear writing in the licence rather than by inference. There is a reason why licences.exist, and it's so the company won't have their rights questioned when they exercise them, resulting in legal fees and, to be frank, an awful lot of distraction. They don't want to spend their time in court proving that they don't have to have their IP used in conjunction with distasteful material, they'd rather be in their office creating the next splatbook.
Now, I'm on the side of restricting this power because the nature of corporations and the nature of the market means that it's likely to get abused at some point to control something they shouldn't. In the interests of decency, it's important to note that it's borne out of good faith at the moment - even if we need to ensure that it's protected against bad faith actions in the future.
Fun Fact TSR's Star frontiers(I think that's the one) wasn't even released under the OGL so these new changes wouldn't even protect them from that shit storm.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
Do you have ANY examples of anything from WotC displaying prejudice against anyone trans? They are cleaning up wording in their products to eliminate prejudices.
Half the world may consider such aspects of reality obscene, but WotC seems clearly in the other half.
Are you THAT dim to think the pendulum can't swing back the other direction? I swear to God, people need to STOP thinking that once "their side" gets to the top of the cultural heap that it means they will never get knocked from that pedestal. All it would take is a change of ownership at Hasbro to clean out anyone that doesn't think like the new leadership and BAM, cultural shift in D&D.
I would never sign any such agreement. I understand that their heart is in the right place, but it's short-sighted. If you want to change the world for the better, lead by example, don't try to rule with an iron fist as the result is that you become the very problem you're trying to solve. With this sort of OGL Wizards of the Coasts are the clear bad guy. They have decided what others are doing is "harmful", meanwhile they are printing racist crap in books like Spelljammer.
Get your own house in order Wizards!
Isn't 'Iron fist' just being assumed here? Who have they actually told to change anything in that regard?
The issue I have here is that people are acting like them having ANY ability to say 'that's too far' whatsoever as equivalent to 'They'll shut EVERYONE down!!!!'
Sort of yeah. I agree with the statement that they should have no ability to affect 3rd party content in any way nor any power to shut anyone down ever. I don't care if someone puts out a module where you play Nazi's running concentration camps... do I find that offensive? Hell yeah. Would I buy it... hell no? Do I defend the right of someone to create such content... you bet your ass I will. I have the right to be offended, I have the right to not buy things or speak out against things, I don't have the right to block and outlaw someones right to create whatever content they want.
Its not Wizards of the Coasts job to govern 3rd party content, they can and should govern their own content, lead by example, create whatever version of D&D that fits their vision/ethics, but when it comes to the rest of the community and the content they create, that is up to us to govern ourselves and we do so with our wallets and our voice, not by outlawing things we don't agree with.
They are a business with a brand identity, and they wish to protect it. When nazi town gets made, and the creators get to slap a D&D logo on it, WotC gets the blowback, too. “How could you allow your company to support such hate speech!?! Look, there’s an ampersand right there on the cover.” And wizards is supposed to say, “well, we don’t actually make it, we just let other people make it.” See how that goes.
Thus isn’t some government intrusion. We don’t have a constitutional right to use someone else’s product to build our own business. It’s a private company who owns and produces a product, and they should be able to say who else gets to use it.
Do you have ANY examples of anything from WotC displaying prejudice against anyone trans? They are cleaning up wording in their products to eliminate prejudices.
Half the world may consider such aspects of reality obscene, but WotC seems clearly in the other half.
Are you THAT dim to think the pendulum can't swing back the other direction? I swear to God, people need to STOP thinking that once "their side" gets to the top of the cultural heap that it means they will never get knocked from that pedestal. All it would take is a change of ownership at Hasbro to clean out anyone that doesn't think like the new leadership and BAM, cultural shift in D&D.
The pendulum can swing at any time though. It can swing with or without this and if it swings without this, it doesn't have as far to swing to go too far on the wrong direction.
"If you do anything good it might mean you'll do something evil later" does not seem a particularly good argument to me.
Its why dictatorships and monarchies are largely things of the past. The pendulum always swings and power almost always draws people with ill intent.
Good can be accomplished without opening the door to abusers. And the good that has been created should be protected.
I would never sign any such agreement. I understand that their heart is in the right place, but it's short-sighted. If you want to change the world for the better, lead by example, don't try to rule with an iron fist as the result is that you become the very problem you're trying to solve. With this sort of OGL Wizards of the Coasts are the clear bad guy. They have decided what others are doing is "harmful", meanwhile they are printing racist crap in books like Spelljammer.
Get your own house in order Wizards!
Isn't 'Iron fist' just being assumed here? Who have they actually told to change anything in that regard?
The issue I have here is that people are acting like them having ANY ability to say 'that's too far' whatsoever as equivalent to 'They'll shut EVERYONE down!!!!'
Sort of yeah. I agree with the statement that they should have no ability to affect 3rd party content in any way nor any power to shut anyone down ever. I don't care if someone puts out a module where you play Nazi's running concentration camps... do I find that offensive? Hell yeah. Would I buy it... hell no? Do I defend the right of someone to create such content... you bet your ass I will. I have the right to be offended, I have the right to not buy things or speak out against things, I don't have the right to block and outlaw someones right to create whatever content they want.
Its not Wizards of the Coasts job to govern 3rd party content, they can and should govern their own content, lead by example, create whatever version of D&D that fits their vision/ethics, but when it comes to the rest of the community and the content they create, that is up to us to govern ourselves and we do so with our wallets and our voice, not by outlawing things we don't agree with.
They are a business with a brand identity, and they wish to protect it. When nazi town gets made, and the creators get to slap a D&D logo on it, WotC gets the blowback, too. “How could you allow your company to support such hate speech!?! Look, there’s an ampersand right there on the cover.” And wizards is supposed to say, “well, we don’t actually make it, we just let other people make it.” See how that goes.
Thus isn’t some government intrusion. We don’t have a constitutional right to use someone else’s product to build our own business. It’s a private company who owns and produces a product, and they should be able to say who else gets to use it.
Does the OGL allow someone to use the D&D logo?
And the company determined how people could use some elements of the game with the Original Perpetual License and assured the community they would never attempt to kill the original OGL.
They are a business with a brand identity, and they wish to protect it. When nazi town gets made, and the creators get to slap a D&D logo on it, WotC gets the blowback, too. “How could you allow your company to support such hate speech!?! Look, there’s an ampersand right there on the cover.” And wizards is supposed to say, “well, we don’t actually make it, we just let other people make it.” See how that goes.
Thus isn’t some government intrusion. We don’t have a constitutional right to use someone else’s product to build our own business. It’s a private company who owns and produces a product, and they should be able to say who else gets to use it.
The ampersand is not allowable in the OGL. The whole point is to give the generic non-copyright/trademark/watermark stuff in an open license, not a restrictive one. By its nature such mechanics were never illegal to use in the first place. The OGL was merely a way to say we won't sue you or block you in any way in building your own systems off it.
Companies make restrictive contracts all the time, but here they say its open, while wanting complete control over what they deem so and so terms that gives them total control to effectively revoke it. Its a cake and eat it too moment with openness and control. That is what is being called out.
Even if they were extremely benevolent with such clauses, who is to say they will keep being so when a new CEO comes in? They could suddenly shut down all works that criticism them while using labels of "hateful" content as their weapon without anyone to define what that means, and no court to examine it. In fact, that is exactly what is happening now with new folk trying to revoke the previous OGL so they have more control. Do you seriously trust these new folk to define morality with total control?
They could go the route of Nintendo, if not more so and have extreme control. Fine, but what's the point of the OGL then? That is why people are leaving.
I would never sign any such agreement. I understand that their heart is in the right place, but it's short-sighted. If you want to change the world for the better, lead by example, don't try to rule with an iron fist as the result is that you become the very problem you're trying to solve. With this sort of OGL Wizards of the Coasts are the clear bad guy. They have decided what others are doing is "harmful", meanwhile they are printing racist crap in books like Spelljammer.
Get your own house in order Wizards!
Isn't 'Iron fist' just being assumed here? Who have they actually told to change anything in that regard?
The issue I have here is that people are acting like them having ANY ability to say 'that's too far' whatsoever as equivalent to 'They'll shut EVERYONE down!!!!'
Sort of yeah. I agree with the statement that they should have no ability to affect 3rd party content in any way nor any power to shut anyone down ever. I don't care if someone puts out a module where you play Nazi's running concentration camps... do I find that offensive? Hell yeah. Would I buy it... hell no? Do I defend the right of someone to create such content... you bet your ass I will. I have the right to be offended, I have the right to not buy things or speak out against things, I don't have the right to block and outlaw someones right to create whatever content they want.
Its not Wizards of the Coasts job to govern 3rd party content, they can and should govern their own content, lead by example, create whatever version of D&D that fits their vision/ethics, but when it comes to the rest of the community and the content they create, that is up to us to govern ourselves and we do so with our wallets and our voice, not by outlawing things we don't agree with.
They are a business with a brand identity, and they wish to protect it. When nazi town gets made, and the creators get to slap a D&D logo on it, WotC gets the blowback, too. “How could you allow your company to support such hate speech!?! Look, there’s an ampersand right there on the cover.” And wizards is supposed to say, “well, we don’t actually make it, we just let other people make it.” See how that goes.
Thus isn’t some government intrusion. We don’t have a constitutional right to use someone else’s product to build our own business. It’s a private company who owns and produces a product, and they should be able to say who else gets to use it.
Its why dictatorships and monarchies are largely things of the past. The pendulum always swings and power almost always draws people with ill intent.
Good can be accomplished without opening the door to abusers. And the good that has been created should be protected.
And yet, democracies are still representative democracies. There are no pure democracies where everyone votes on everything as it is completely impractical and simply does not function. There are also property rights, which we cannot simply easily vote away, simply out of convenience to ourselves.
The limits of property rights are defined by law. You essentially said nothing by making the "convenience" claim. The "convenience" argument makes even less sense considering the context of the OGL.
CREATOR PRODUCT BADGES. For content published under the OGL 1.2, you may use one of following badges in the manner specified in the Creator Product Badge Style Guide. So long as you comply with that guide in using the badges, Wizards licenses you under the OGL 1.2 to use such a badge on any of Your Licensed Works.
under that are three badges, each with the ampersand displayed prominently
This is a tactic called poisoning the well, and is both unfair and I'm pretty it's untrue at this point. I'm usually pretty skeptical of corporate motives, but in this case, I can definitely see where they're coming from.
Recently there was a case of another company publishing racist material (as in, actually racist material that claims that real world races are superior and inferior to one another, not in-game racism or having the mere appearance of racism) that reflected back on WotC. That has resulted in a lawsuit which, if it goes to trial, will be incredibly expensive for WotC. It won't bankrupt them, but it's not going to be a couple of dollars either.
WotC are going to want to make it very plain that they have the right to withdraw their IP in such cases. That is best achieved by having it in clear writing in the licence rather than by inference. There is a reason why licences.exist, and it's so the company won't have their rights questioned when they exercise them, resulting in legal fees and, to be frank, an awful lot of distraction. They don't want to spend their time in court proving that they don't have to have their IP used in conjunction with distasteful material, they'd rather be in their office creating the next splatbook.
Now, I'm on the side of restricting this power because the nature of corporations and the nature of the market means that it's likely to get abused at some point to control something they shouldn't. In the interests of decency, it's important to note that it's borne out of good faith at the moment - even if we need to ensure that it's protected against bad faith actions in the future.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Sort of yeah. I agree with the statement that they should have no ability to affect 3rd party content in any way nor any power to shut anyone down ever. I don't care if someone puts out a module where you play Nazi's running concentration camps... do I find that offensive? Hell yeah. Would I buy it... hell no? Do I defend the right of someone to create such content... you bet your ass I will. I have the right to be offended, I have the right to not buy things or speak out against things, I don't have the right to block and outlaw someones right to create whatever content they want.
Its not Wizards of the Coasts job to govern 3rd party content, they can and should govern their own content, lead by example, create whatever version of D&D that fits their vision/ethics, but when it comes to the rest of the community and the content they create, that is up to us to govern ourselves and we do so with our wallets and our voice, not by outlawing things we don't agree with.
Not any truly free countries... but I digress....
You don't need an OGL to defend yourself against someone claiming to be associated with Wizards of the Coast if they are not, that is what copyright and trademark laws are for.
I'm not going to defend every stupid thing any random proponent of 1.0 claim or believes. What I'm saying is that you don't need an OGL to protect your intellectual property. The OGL is there primarily as a courtesy to content creators to be more specific about which parts of that property can and can't be used, its not there to tell people what sort of content they can and can't create. That is the difference between 1.0 and everything we have seen since.
So that WotC can't just stifle competitors using their arbitrary justifications for what constitutes hate and discriminatory content (especially given they have shown they are incapable of doing so given both Curse of Strahd and Spelljammer: Adventures in Space), they should be required to give said review and determination process to a third party independent non profit organisation that specialises in identifying and combatting hate. Give the power to somebody like the Southern Poverty Law Centre to manage, it shouldn't be WotC.
How would an OGL change any of that? I mean if someone is willing to break copyright and trademark laws, why would an OGL stop them?
It's not like there is a publishing police that validates whether or not you are following the rules. People are going to publish whatever they want to publish and if Wizards of the Coasts wants to shut them down, OGL or not, they would have to take them to court and or follow the usual processes. The fact that it's an expensive or counter productive to take people to court is neither here or there, OGL or not.
The main principle behind the OGL is instruction, guidelines for people who want to follow the rules, it's no more or less enforceable than any other copyright or trademark contract. The point here is that the vast majority of publishers will comply to the OGL whatever it is. So if the OGL says "hey you can't publish certain types of content", than people will not publish it.
In that notion is what I have a problem with. Wizards of the Coast should not be telling people what sort of content they can or can't publish, this will stifle content creators.
This is also the part I don't understand about Wizards approach here. This 1.2 OGL is really restrictive, the result will be fewer 3rd party publishers making content for D&D but it will not result in fewer 3rd party publishers in general. Quite to the contrary, the most likely outcome is that 3rd party publishers that are making content for 5e today, will be making content for Pathfinder 2nd edition tomorrow, simply choosing the next best thing. This in turn will shrink the community, shrink the audience and push people away from D&D into other games.
Even if they successfully execute and publish this OGL, its going to be bad for D&D. I mean I'm a 3rd party publisher, the fact that this OGL is even being considered has me thinking I will release my material for PF2 in the future instead of D&D because while the audience might be smaller, at least I can publish it without having to worry about Wizards of the Coasts bullshit in the future.
Because it is not only a matter of policing heteful etc. etc. content, but is a backdoor for them to police anything they might not like, since they would be the sole judges of what contitutes infringment of that clause of the OGL.
Under this OGL version, they could effectively shut down creators they do not like for whatever reason, claiming that their content is hateful, discriminatory, racist or whathave you, and the content creator would not be able to do anything about it.
Edit: corrected typos
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Not just their content, but their behaviour too. Have you liked "wrong" comment on social media, bang "you are engaging in a stuff that...", are you into BDSM/onlyfans/whatever, bang "that's engaging in an obscene activity" (because whoever is at the time in charge of the wotc inqusition thinks so).
And it doesn't matter whether there is a history of wotc considering anything of that problematic now. For the last 22 years, there wasn't any history of wotc trying to pull the ogl 1.0a rug either.
Allowing this kind of power to the "good and wise" people so they can do all the benevolent things is a problem because eventually the "mean and foolish" will find their way to have that power too.
What we do have is a company that has gone back on its word considering the original OGL. Why should we blindly trust them and endorse their claim of all the leverage when it is clear that their interpretation of the law concerning their asserted rights is rather debatable? What 'objectionable gaming products' have harmed Hasbro/WoTC? This 'remedy' of theirs is rather extreme for an unrealized problem that has a simpler solution.
I think what is assumed is that it's another clause in their new "license" that ALLOWS them rule with an iron fist. Whether they do or don't is another matter. However, look at what leaked. Look at the psychology behind what leaked. Tell me you think they have their heads on straight for the long view based on what they originally put in their new OGL. Do you think they suddenly have been enlightened because we complained OR do you think they are trying to maximize their goals, giving as little as they can, while mollifying those who unsubscribed.
Fun Fact TSR's Star frontiers(I think that's the one) wasn't even released under the OGL so these new changes wouldn't even protect them from that shit storm.
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
Are you THAT dim to think the pendulum can't swing back the other direction? I swear to God, people need to STOP thinking that once "their side" gets to the top of the cultural heap that it means they will never get knocked from that pedestal. All it would take is a change of ownership at Hasbro to clean out anyone that doesn't think like the new leadership and BAM, cultural shift in D&D.
They are a business with a brand identity, and they wish to protect it. When nazi town gets made, and the creators get to slap a D&D logo on it, WotC gets the blowback, too. “How could you allow your company to support such hate speech!?! Look, there’s an ampersand right there on the cover.” And wizards is supposed to say, “well, we don’t actually make it, we just let other people make it.” See how that goes.
Thus isn’t some government intrusion. We don’t have a constitutional right to use someone else’s product to build our own business. It’s a private company who owns and produces a product, and they should be able to say who else gets to use it.
Its why dictatorships and monarchies are largely things of the past. The pendulum always swings and power almost always draws people with ill intent.
Good can be accomplished without opening the door to abusers. And the good that has been created should be protected.
Dictatorships and monarchies are the majority in the UN. Go ahead and look it up.
Does the OGL allow someone to use the D&D logo?
And the company determined how people could use some elements of the game with the Original Perpetual License and assured the community they would never attempt to kill the original OGL.
The ampersand is not allowable in the OGL. The whole point is to give the generic non-copyright/trademark/watermark stuff in an open license, not a restrictive one. By its nature such mechanics were never illegal to use in the first place. The OGL was merely a way to say we won't sue you or block you in any way in building your own systems off it.
Companies make restrictive contracts all the time, but here they say its open, while wanting complete control over what they deem so and so terms that gives them total control to effectively revoke it. Its a cake and eat it too moment with openness and control. That is what is being called out.
Even if they were extremely benevolent with such clauses, who is to say they will keep being so when a new CEO comes in? They could suddenly shut down all works that criticism them while using labels of "hateful" content as their weapon without anyone to define what that means, and no court to examine it. In fact, that is exactly what is happening now with new folk trying to revoke the previous OGL so they have more control. Do you seriously trust these new folk to define morality with total control?
They could go the route of Nintendo, if not more so and have extreme control. Fine, but what's the point of the OGL then? That is why people are leaving.
The limits of property rights are defined by law. You essentially said nothing by making the "convenience" claim. The "convenience" argument makes even less sense considering the context of the OGL.
under that are three badges, each with the ampersand displayed prominently
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master