Still gonna need an assurance they don't try to pull it away again at a future date. But a step in the right direction.
Best thing about Creative Commons is that WotC/Hasbro don't control it.
The fact that we had to get to this point in the first place has eroded any and all trust I had in WotC. And it will take a while to rebuild. The players in the 3 campaigns I DM have already voted to switch systems a couple of weeks ago. So I'm pivoting away from d&d regardless.
Still gonna need an assurance they don't try to pull it away again at a future date. But a step in the right direction.
Best thing about Creative Commons is that WotC/Hasbro don't control it.
The fact that we had to get to this point in the first place has eroded any and all trust I had in WotC. And it will take a while to rebuild. The players in the 3 campaigns I DM have already voted to switch systems a couple of weeks ago. So I'm pivoting away from d&d regardless.
They literally can't. Once something is out under CC-BY-4.0, it's out. Irrevokable as long as you follow the terms of the license.
As long as they don't find a way to screw us over, then we won.
If this turns out to be what we want, I will re-subscribe to DDB.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
The one glaring point of silence in the survey update is section 6(f). I honestly didn't expect them to concede their other unacceptable points, but by not saying anything it still seems like they intend to die on that hill. I'm curious to know what the survey results were on that, I think there are more well intentioned but foolish people who support wizards becoming the content police for all ogl content, than supported their other terrible changes. I'm interested to see the numbers, and I know it was a major point of contention that likely came up in a majority of survey responses. 6(f) alone, as currently written is enough to make OGL 1.2 unusable, because it gives Wotc the ability to unilaterally void your license at any time for no reason. No reasonable person would agree to that. Whether or not a more acceptable version of a content policy should be included in the license is much more controversial.
My personal opinion is that no good can come of it and that it creates new problems while attempting to solve a problem that doesn't currently exist. It is impossible to create any kind of well defined policy which meaningfully restricts genuinely malicious content without also significantly restricting legitimate content. No mater where you try to trace that line, it will end up with stuff on one side or the other that shouldn't be there, and likely err in both directions for different kinds of material. If you make the policy fuzzy rather than well defined then you are back to "trust me bro" by wotc, and a large portion of the community is rightfully not prepared to do that given the 1.1 and 1.2 documents. Further even if you do trust the current leadership and decision making of Wotc, recent events with twitter should have taught you the folly of trusting any corporation to maintain a direction they have no obligation to continue, or accepting license terms that allow them to put you out of business on a whim if they change their mind.
This is truly great news. But it's too late, so much dissatisfaction with 'the brand' now and well PF2e has always been better, people have given it a try and they might not come back.
The one glaring point of silence in the survey update is section 6(f). I honestly didn't expect them to concede their other unacceptable points, but by not saying anything it still seems like they intend to die on that hill. I'm curious to know what the survey results were on that, I think there are more well intentioned but foolish people who support wizards becoming the content police for all ogl content, than supported their other terrible changes. I'm interested to see the numbers, and I know it was a major point of contention that likely came up in a majority of survey responses. 6(f) alone, as currently written is enough to make OGL 1.2 unusable, because it gives Wotc the ability to unilaterally void your license at any time for no reason. No reasonable person would agree to that. Whether or not a more acceptable version of a content policy should be included in the license is much more controversial.
My personal opinion is that no good can come of it and that it creates new problems while attempting to solve a problem that doesn't currently exist. It is impossible to create any kind of well defined policy which meaningfully restricts genuinely malicious content without also significantly restricting legitimate content. No mater where you try to trace that line, it will end up with stuff on one side or the other that shouldn't be there, and likely err in both directions for different kinds of material. If you make the policy fuzzy rather than well defined then you are back to "trust me bro" by wotc, and a large portion of the community is rightfully not prepared to do that given the 1.1 and 1.2 documents. Further even if you do trust the current leadership and decision making of Wotc, recent events with twitter should have taught you the folly of trusting any corporation to maintain a direction they have no obligation to continue, or accepting license terms that allow them to put you out of business on a whim if they change their mind.
Do you not understand? There is no longer a 1.2, therefore, there is no longer a 6f.
To be fair, the release of the SRD under an actually good license is certainly a win.
Exactly, there will definitely still be a new OGL for 6e as well.. Which they will now TALK TO PUBLISHERS and get their opinion instead of trying to shove it down their throat. They would never make this public again. This is a win all around. IMO
We get to keep making content for 5e and keep our VTTs. Give them more incentive to make 6e more open and BETTER. Micro transactions will be scrutinized internally.
No mention of d&done. So they'll likely reintroduce the ogl 1.2 along with the VTT policy in a year or so to cover that going forward.
Perhaps. But that is a very different scenario to revoking an existing agreement. I think it would be a mistake, but if it is a new product not already covered, it's their mistake to make (as was 4e)
No mention of d&done. So they'll likely reintroduce the ogl 1.2 along with the VTT policy in a year or so to cover that going forward.
Possibly, but the funny part is, they've already shot themselves in the foot on that if they try. No 3pp is going to sign on to the OGL 1.2 or 1.3 or whatever they call it. This gives the 3PP room to finish putting out what they are working on under CC's, and then shift to a different system, continue to support 5e, or take the time to roll their own.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons
Still gonna need an assurance they don't try to pull it away again at a future date. But a step in the right direction.
Best thing about Creative Commons is that WotC/Hasbro don't control it.
The fact that we had to get to this point in the first place has eroded any and all trust I had in WotC. And it will take a while to rebuild. The players in the 3 campaigns I DM have already voted to switch systems a couple of weeks ago. So I'm pivoting away from d&d regardless.
Wow. It's almost is if voicing your dissatisfaction collectively might actually yield results!
I am actually impressed by this latest response.
Huh? That is almost a full stride back. Interesting
They literally can't. Once something is out under CC-BY-4.0, it's out. Irrevokable as long as you follow the terms of the license.
As long as they don't find a way to screw us over, then we won.
If this turns out to be what we want, I will re-subscribe to DDB.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
WoTC the damage is done you have burned so much good will and trust it will take you a long time to get it back.
To be fair, the release of the SRD under an actually good license is certainly a win.
Well that's some good news to end the week.. Power to the players!
Worth noting:
No mention of d&done. So they'll likely reintroduce the ogl 1.2 along with the VTT policy in a year or so to cover that going forward.
The one glaring point of silence in the survey update is section 6(f). I honestly didn't expect them to concede their other unacceptable points, but by not saying anything it still seems like they intend to die on that hill. I'm curious to know what the survey results were on that, I think there are more well intentioned but foolish people who support wizards becoming the content police for all ogl content, than supported their other terrible changes. I'm interested to see the numbers, and I know it was a major point of contention that likely came up in a majority of survey responses. 6(f) alone, as currently written is enough to make OGL 1.2 unusable, because it gives Wotc the ability to unilaterally void your license at any time for no reason. No reasonable person would agree to that. Whether or not a more acceptable version of a content policy should be included in the license is much more controversial.
My personal opinion is that no good can come of it and that it creates new problems while attempting to solve a problem that doesn't currently exist. It is impossible to create any kind of well defined policy which meaningfully restricts genuinely malicious content without also significantly restricting legitimate content. No mater where you try to trace that line, it will end up with stuff on one side or the other that shouldn't be there, and likely err in both directions for different kinds of material. If you make the policy fuzzy rather than well defined then you are back to "trust me bro" by wotc, and a large portion of the community is rightfully not prepared to do that given the 1.1 and 1.2 documents. Further even if you do trust the current leadership and decision making of Wotc, recent events with twitter should have taught you the folly of trusting any corporation to maintain a direction they have no obligation to continue, or accepting license terms that allow them to put you out of business on a whim if they change their mind.
This is truly great news.
But it's too late, so much dissatisfaction with 'the brand' now and well PF2e has always been better, people have given it a try and they might not come back.
Do you not understand? There is no longer a 1.2, therefore, there is no longer a 6f.
Exactly, there will definitely still be a new OGL for 6e as well.. Which they will now TALK TO PUBLISHERS and get their opinion instead of trying to shove it down their throat. They would never make this public again. This is a win all around. IMO
We get to keep making content for 5e and keep our VTTs. Give them more incentive to make 6e more open and BETTER. Micro transactions will be scrutinized internally.
Perhaps. But that is a very different scenario to revoking an existing agreement. I think it would be a mistake, but if it is a new product not already covered, it's their mistake to make (as was 4e)
People, now don't be jerks. WoTc has heard our demands. They have done well. And they might not have.
Let's not keep making noise, please. We have achieved it. That's it. Let's continue with One D&D and what's to come.
They made a mistake, yes. But they have rectified. Congratulations.
Untouched means 1.0a will remain intact for D&D SRD 5.1 but D&D 6e will be released with no OGL or a very restrictive one. Wait and see.
It's also covered by creative commons now. So yes. A big win for the community.
You're welcome.
Possibly, but the funny part is, they've already shot themselves in the foot on that if they try. No 3pp is going to sign on to the OGL 1.2 or 1.3 or whatever they call it. This gives the 3PP room to finish putting out what they are working on under CC's, and then shift to a different system, continue to support 5e, or take the time to roll their own.
Let's keep making noise until we know they're not gonna pull OGL 1.2 bullshit for the next edition and threaten to sue VTTs and DMCA VTT users.