STU. Why are you so against protecting people? You don't want Wizards to do it, you don't want a third party to do it, you don't want the community to do it, you don't want anybody to do it. Risk?
Risk?
Who gives a shit about Risk? This is the D&D Beyond forums, we're here to discuss D&D. The rest of Hasbro can sod off. Nobody cares about million year old children's board games. This is ridiculous. AT SOME POINT, SOMEONE has to do something to stop the Ernest Gygaxes of the world from taking D&D away from countless people that he's decided don't deserve to play anymore because they're not white enough, or straight enough, or cis enough, or male enough. Someone with some actual authority to take a stand and make it matter. I don't have that authority. None of us do.
So who's it gonna be?
The implication that I cannot protect myself against someone writing a book or putting garbage out into the world is insulting. We are not weaklings who need protection from everything that you think we can't handle or haven't dealt with before. I would rather have a free and open D&D than be made to believe that I don't have enough agency to defend myself and not be codded like a child. It's honestly extremely patronizing.
As for the hate. I know this opens the door for hateful products to be produced. The community does have to police itself.
The control of what can be produced by 3rd party creators associated with D&D has not changed one iota from now and before this entire debacle started. The door is open (or closed) precisely the same amount as before. Nothing legally has changed in that respect.
Well legally it has, a bit. Now 3rd parties can use the entire SRD 5.1 without needing to use the OGL at all. Some of the SRD was copyright belonging to Wizards. By placing it in the CC, they have given that copyright up to world. Sure, it's not a huge change, but it is definitely a change. It means Wizards won't be doing any witch-hunts, because it's not their SRD.
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
STU. Why are you so against protecting people? You don't want Wizards to do it, you don't want a third party to do it, you don't want the community to do it, you don't want anybody to do it. Risk?
Risk?
Who gives a shit about Risk? This is the D&D Beyond forums, we're here to discuss D&D. The rest of Hasbro can sod off. Nobody cares about million year old children's board games. This is ridiculous. AT SOME POINT, SOMEONE has to do something to stop the Ernest Gygaxes of the world from taking D&D away from countless people that he's decided don't deserve to play anymore because they're not white enough, or straight enough, or cis enough, or male enough. Someone with some actual authority to take a stand and make it matter. I don't have that authority. None of us do.
So who's it gonna be?
Wizards gave up any remaining shred of (perceived) responsibility for - and power over - the SRD by putting it into the Creative Commons. Guess what? The SRD is now yours. There's your authority. Go ahead and make your stand.
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 would also bet that Hasbro will create a new license for One D&D like they created a new license for 4e.
They can put anything that they want to put into that new license to protect their brand (not marginalized people, but their brand) from hateful content.
If that happens, third party creators will more than likely move away from One D&D entirely to create under the CC license or the ORC license (unless the new license protects not only Hasbro's brand but third party creators as well).
Third party content to support One D&D will then become next to nil, like during 4e.
That means that third party content could end up being twice removed from the brand of Dungeons and Dragons; once removed by being under the CC license or the ORC license and twice removed by third party creators moving away from One D&D entirely.
Hasbro could get its wish to be by itself on its own private island with Dungeons and Dragons anyway.
Well legally it has, a bit. Now 3rd parties can use the entire SRD 5.1 without needing to use the OGL at all. Some of the SRD was copyright belonging to Wizards.
It still is. Placing something in creative commons is not the same as putting something in the public domain, and does not change the copyright holder. It just dramatically limits what control the copyright holder has over third party actions.
Well legally it has, a bit. Now 3rd parties can use the entire SRD 5.1 without needing to use the OGL at all. Some of the SRD was copyright belonging to Wizards.
It still is. Placing something in creative commons is not the same as putting something in the public domain, and does not change the copyright holder. It just dramatically limits what control the copyright holder has over third party actions.
Technically that's true, yes. The fact that Wizards has very limited control however means that the public has nearly unlimited control of what they can do with it. Practically, it's almost the same thing.
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
Well legally it has, a bit. Now 3rd parties can use the entire SRD 5.1 without needing to use the OGL at all. Some of the SRD was copyright belonging to Wizards.
It still is. Placing something in creative commons is not the same as putting something in the public domain, and does not change the copyright holder. It just dramatically limits what control the copyright holder has over third party actions.
(finger on monkey's paw curls)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Unfortunately at this point on this journey leaving 1.0a untouched is no longer a feasible resolution. A 1.0b revision removing all ambiguity, in line with existing customer expectations, needs to be produced.
This just says you either don't know what the OGL was for or you don't know what the creative commons are.
The OGL is mostly irrelevant now. The entire SRD is now under a license managed by a not-for-profit 3rd party, and out of WotC's hands.
This is MORE than we were asking for.
Well, if you want to get into what the OGL is for, it is not just for the SRD but also covers the content of thousands and thousands of products by companies other than WotC. So a "fixed" OGL would still be useful.
But, yes, one of the SRDs under CC is definitely a great step!
Well, if you want to get into what the OGL is for, it is not just for the SRD but also covers the content of thousands and thousands of products by companies other than WotC. So a "fixed" OGL would still be useful.
A 'fixed' OGL has no effect unless those other companies actually update their products to specify that they're using it, and if they're going to update their products anyway they have other options.
Keep the pressure up, I'll let my subscription lapse until Mr. Micro... "transactional" is gone.
Here's my "rant". I think it bears merit.
"like many" I came back to TTRPGs due to Covid/isolation and 5e was the easiest/most accessible - I had a bunch of stuff from when I was in my early 20s I started with a "used" Red box as a kid and had a bunch of stuff through to 3rd ed when I discovered the other gender, drugs, alcohol etc. Covid landed me in what I'm gonna call the "2nd golden age of TTRPGs" high speed internet, Discord and social interaction that I couldn't get irl (because Covid and a profession that mandated healthcare" we really do have The Tools. Damn, it's not trying to get an after school/college game going and you need to bribe/hassle an extra friend (that's not really "into it") because you need a Cleric in the party - people are just waiting for a game on the other side of the planet - sweet ...and now I have a chance to play "weird stuff" like CoC or whatever that I'd never have hoped for irl - just not practical.
- then Wotc tried to take a dump on that.
My fellow nerds, it's a weird form of social interaction, but it's one where I can be a weirdo too (Radiohead "creep".mp3), but I can pursue my niche interests and that's awesome - a community that can "just make stuff" I'm like a pig in filth.
Wotc/Hasbro exists as an entity and cool, make money, but if it takes a bunch of literate + motivated nerds to exercise their spending power to beat that into the Corporation - tough poop to the shareholders and Executives... look at what we're asking/demanding/threatening to withhold (our disposable incomes from) and decide if that fits your business model and short/long term aims...
If the two don't marry, then we have a situation like we've had - as others have said, it's corporate strategy. Do the execs annual bonuses get reflected in this situation? We're dealing with a bunch of people that are already looking at their next position in another company - because that's how it works for them, their "value" (how they perceive their value) is in how they see their position/potential earnings annually and how they can trade that off in "their next job" in the "next corporate entity" - that's just how the job market works micro/macro - no different for you or I - If I do well in my current job role, how does that affect my long term earning potential? - and these people answers to shareholders in the short term It would be "super nice" to see people that viewed their job roles in my favourite "niche hobby" in the long term and also wanted it to be a healthy environment for the people "emotionally invested" in it... I think that's the "best" long term strategy for "the hobby" - that's what I want to see (but I'm not an exec, nor shareholder and I've explained how I see their motivation(s)) and I think I'm right ;) For a healthy hobby - it is gonna require "us" the users to be active in guiding how we want to see it - and if that requires us to beat that into Hasbro with the lead pipes/melee weapons of our wallets and our Keyboard Warrior tool kits, let's do it -
I Roll Persuasion but I also Roll Investigation, Steath and Sleight of Hand too and DM - I'll take "Backstab" as a readied action because "fudgikins" to the Executives - I want a healthy hobby - by guile or force I don't think "passively" is going to be ok. Not into the future and Wotc/Hasbro have proven they're not trustworthy with the future of our hobby. "We want to safeguard against Hateful content" cool, me too, but I wish Wotc (and Hasblow by merit of ownership) would stop actually creating it because too lazy/stupid/misguided to employ a proof reader (I know 2, both unemployed irl and you know - remote work 2020s). Pokerface.jpg
* and I realise - I am ranting on the internet - and all the stupidity that involves
but let's pause, take stock -
a) we have some pretty classy tools for actual PLAY - Discord, Skype, Zoom, Foundry Roll20 (lol) and other VTTs are available.
b) we could be looking at an influx of noobs - that we can shape - they're going to be shaped by how we interact, not only with them, but within "the hobby". We're the damn Guardians of "the hobby" The Warriors, Wizards with the wherewithall the protect the sacred texts. Not them.
- if we got a bunch of noobs that want to be "sneaky thieves" because "cool movie" sweet, that's awesome. but maybe those noobs "grew up on" Harry Potter/Narnia/The Hunger Games... Scott Bakker... etc. etc. and they can be guided towards games and systems that scratch that particular itch - because we're in an age where that IS accessible so long as Wotc or "mega-corp" don't take a dump on it those noobs aren't likely the Jocks/cool kids/sports kids etc. - they're young us and we can give them homes where they can be a Detective that wields magic(Dresden dude) or Harry Potter etc. and that will give our niche hobby healthy longevity - and I WISH I had that as a tween/teen/young adult.
THIS IS THE GAME that fired my imagination as an 8 year old boy. This IS the thing that got me into reading novels and doing better at school and passively learning vocabulary. Amongst all the wonderful things books gave me D&D is the one thing that's had a stunning impact on my personal development because of all the stuff that came with it. I would never have been able to comprehend The Diary of Anne Frank without that starting passion for literacy before I even understood what literacy really was.
Keep the pressure up on Wotc and Hasbro and crappy Executives that don't care - we've got noobs to welcome - they've got homes to find and our weird niche hobby is worth far more than annual bonuses - because we can give lifelong bonuses to the kids that read Hunger Games or Dresden or Narnia etc. Those things are out there and deserve protecting too even if that's secondary to Hasbro policy or Chris CaCao's bonus.
...and we fight, we have not won the war. We have won this battle and we shall not stop until a skinny nerd that can't play sports picks up a book with a group of friends irl or online - until that skinny kid that's lost in the land of imagination picks up their sacred text and shares it with the world and joins forces within another skinny or obese or trans, or gay - or just a kid that needs a home somewhere with some form of imagination sharing that they wouldn't get anywhere else - when all those damn kids are empowered by imagination and the desire to learn and some tools to DO MORE LEARNING, then we rest - and the Execs can have their bonuses along the way too - so long as it aligns with our goals. It's what our Lord Gygax commanded.
It's wrong and harmful to silence ideas. Even (maybe especially) the most vile and horrible ones. Those kinds of ideas fester in the dark.
But no one is ever obligated to support, entertain, or distribute offensive material; the opposite is true. If WotC wised up and began to run D&D Beyond (and the VTT) more like Steam or the Apple store, they could and should ensure that nothing terrible is passed on through their online store. Other distributors have similar rules.
It is the responsibility of every member of a society to reject bad ideas. Expecting one group - whether a panel, or a company, or a group of companies - to do this work on society's behalf is asking for trouble. It is work, and it's not always pleasant for those of us who are impacted, but it's not something we can safely delegate, either.
I would also bet that Hasbro will create a new license for One D&D like they created a new license for 4e.
They can put anything that they want to put into that new license to protect their brand (not marginalized people, but their brand) from hateful content.
If that happens, third party creators will more than likely move away from One D&D entirely to create under the CC license or the ORC license (unless the new license protects not only Hasbro's brand but third party creators as well).
Third party content to support One D&D will then become next to nil, like during 4e.
That means that third party content could end up being twice removed from the brand of Dungeons and Dragons; once removed by being under the CC license or the ORC license and twice removed by third party creators moving away from One D&D entirely.
Hasbro could get its wish to be by itself on its own private island with Dungeons and Dragons anyway.
I don't see them doing this for a few reasons.
1) The new OGL was meant to run in line with the new version of DnD this whole thing was because of the new DnD edition that is coming, it was not specifically about 5E
2) 6th edition DnD Wizards have confirmed is not an entire new game. Wizards will struggle to create a new SRD and OGL for what they have themselves confirmed is a fully backward compatible system. If they where making a new edition of DnD that was incompatible with 5th edition and required an entirely new SRD to cover the mechanics then they could argue for a new OGL as the game itself is entirely different.
3) Finally the backlash if they did this would kill the new system before it was even printed. People would just stick to 5th edition and 3rd party publishers would continue making material for that keeping it new and updated, meaning that, in terms of fantasy based D20 systems, Wizards would be in competition with both Pathfinder and themselves for the new system. Any one DnD changes that people liked a 3rd party could make a sourcebook to add to 5th edition.
Well, if you want to get into what the OGL is for, it is not just for the SRD but also covers the content of thousands and thousands of products by companies other than WotC. So a "fixed" OGL would still be useful.
A 'fixed' OGL has no effect unless those other companies actually update their products to specify that they're using it, and if they're going to update their products anyway they have other options.
Section 9 of 1.0a allows using content originally licensed with 1.0a under a hypothetical 1.0b presuming it's still an actual copyleft Open Gaming License rather than the "just licensing D&D but calling it OGL" attempts we just had. I believe pretty much all copyleft licenses have similar provisions that state the content is usable by later versions of the license.
STU. Why are you so against protecting people? You don't want Wizards to do it, you don't want a third party to do it, you don't want the community to do it, you don't want anybody to do it. Risk?
Risk?
Who gives a shit about Risk? This is the D&D Beyond forums, we're here to discuss D&D. The rest of Hasbro can sod off. Nobody cares about million year old children's board games. This is ridiculous. AT SOME POINT, SOMEONE has to do something to stop the Ernest Gygaxes of the world from taking D&D away from countless people that he's decided don't deserve to play anymore because they're not white enough, or straight enough, or cis enough, or male enough. Someone with some actual authority to take a stand and make it matter. I don't have that authority. None of us do.
So who's it gonna be?
The implication that I cannot protect myself against someone writing a book or putting garbage out into the world is insulting. We are not weaklings who need protection from everything that you think we can't handle or haven't dealt with before. I would rather have a free and open D&D than be made to believe that I don't have enough agency to defend myself and not be codded like a child. It's honestly extremely patronizing.
I mean there are literal children playing this game, so ...
And if there are children playing, then it is on the parents to vet what their kids are exposed to.
And even if nobody was allowed to publish terrible stuff, the DM can introduce it themselves, so stopping publishers wouldn't have an impact since the last couple of decades have shown that the gaming community already rejects terrible published content. All the terrible DM stories come from stuff the DM made up.
A company policing 3rd party content is a solution in search of a problem.
They are a private company, not the bloody government. Why does everyone these days think they have a vote on literally everything. Do you believe your employer's clients should have power over said company as if they are the actual owners?
Meanwhile, that 'The market deciding' concept is a cop out. It is a complete failure with respect to stopping anything shady. If lack of enforcement worked, no society in history would ever have needed any form of government or police force. That has proven otherwise throughout history.
Historical evidence is that successful private restrictions on socially unacceptable content have worked by targeting distribution channels. To look at large examples:
So, you want wotc, company that has clearly demonstrated its deficiencies, and as you have accurately pointed out, is a private company, to provide a board that DOES enforce like a government or police force.
Wizards corrects its issues. It admitted it ****ed up and about-faced on the hadozee, and instituted new production policies to ensure it didn't happen again. it's been steadily reducing and removing legacy harmful content from D&D where and as it can. Wizards, when it's not being an evil amalgamation of profitmongering driven by the market, has been trying.
"The Market", i.e. the faceless mindless gormless gibbering-mouther morass of Internet weirdos that call themselves "the community", has been fighting Wizards every last single step of the god damned way. Every single time Wizards announces that it's removing questionable content from a book and reissuing a patched version, people scourge them for "changing what we bought!" Every single time Wizards announces a change in direction on matters such as drow, orcs, and the rest being genetically evil, we get a thronging multitude of angry jackwaffles on this board and in all the various D&D social media scourging Wizards for "changing classic D&D lore!"
Every. Single. Time.
"The Market" can go **** itself with a Hellfire bear trap. There are reasons I don't trust one single person on this board outside of a pool of roughly six folk to do anything but enthusiastically support racist, sexist, creedist, and elsewise exclusionist content. All they have to do is say "we're bringing back the classic D&D you love!" and people will buy literally anything, by the truckful, no matter what's in it or how explicitly hateful it is. People here want that hatred in their D&D. They protest viciously every time Wizards tries to lessen it.
Maybe a small handful of us don't think that's okay.
You do realize that Hasbro is a publicly traded LLC, right? So it does not even have to be changes in staff, management or being sold to put the powers you not just want to grant them but demand they need to be given to them to fall in the hands of people who ban your content and make the stuff you want to be banned, just needs a large investor. More realistically it would be a market -- like the Chinese maybe having a different view of whatever matters to you? But wait, actually there could be an investor. At them moment the Middle East's princes buy all kinds of stuff. Maybe tomorrow D&D needs to become Sharia-compatible (and everything else being banned). And so forth. You can't prevent total corporate control most of the time, but why you would aggressively demand all power over morality needs to be given to WotC is beyond me.
I mean there are literal children playing this game, so ...
And if there are children playing, then it is on the parents to vet what their kids are exposed to.
And even if nobody was allowed to publish terrible stuff, the DM can introduce it themselves, so stopping publishers wouldn't have an impact since the last couple of decades have shown that the gaming community already rejects terrible published content. All the terrible DM stories come from stuff the DM made up.
A company policing 3rd party content is a solution in search of a problem.
That goes both ways though.
Since you feel it will happen anyway, such censoring will happen anyway. In which case, Hasbro doing censoring would be no additional harm.
Hasbro appointing some unvetted, unelected representatives to arbitrarily decide what is in the common good of D&D, especially given the moral failings demonstrated by leadership in the past 2 months, can indeed inflict harm on many. The market deciding, which is every single consumer of D&D products, or the parents of said consumer, is vastly more effective than any shadowy group.
They are a private company, not the bloody government. Why does everyone these days think they have a vote on literally everything. Do you believe your employer's clients should have power over said company as if they are the actual owners?
Meanwhile, that 'The market deciding' concept is a cop out. It is a complete failure with respect to stopping anything shady. If lack of enforcement worked, no society in history would ever have needed any form of government or police force. That has proven otherwise throughout history.
Stopping everything shady is the wrong goal. Read some history books. It goes badly when people do that. Bottom line, there are going to be people with different value systems than yours express themselves in the marketplace and that is normal and acceptable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The implication that I cannot protect myself against someone writing a book or putting garbage out into the world is insulting. We are not weaklings who need protection from everything that you think we can't handle or haven't dealt with before. I would rather have a free and open D&D than be made to believe that I don't have enough agency to defend myself and not be codded like a child. It's honestly extremely patronizing.
Well legally it has, a bit. Now 3rd parties can use the entire SRD 5.1 without needing to use the OGL at all. Some of the SRD was copyright belonging to Wizards. By placing it in the CC, they have given that copyright up to world. Sure, it's not a huge change, but it is definitely a change. It means Wizards won't be doing any witch-hunts, because it's not their SRD.
“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 SatieWizards gave up any remaining shred of (perceived) responsibility for - and power over - the SRD by putting it into the Creative Commons. Guess what? The SRD is now yours. There's your authority. Go ahead and make your stand.
“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 SatieI would also bet that Hasbro will create a new license for One D&D like they created a new license for 4e.
They can put anything that they want to put into that new license to protect their brand (not marginalized people, but their brand) from hateful content.
If that happens, third party creators will more than likely move away from One D&D entirely to create under the CC license or the ORC license (unless the new license protects not only Hasbro's brand but third party creators as well).
Third party content to support One D&D will then become next to nil, like during 4e.
That means that third party content could end up being twice removed from the brand of Dungeons and Dragons; once removed by being under the CC license or the ORC license and twice removed by third party creators moving away from One D&D entirely.
Hasbro could get its wish to be by itself on its own private island with Dungeons and Dragons anyway.
It still is. Placing something in creative commons is not the same as putting something in the public domain, and does not change the copyright holder. It just dramatically limits what control the copyright holder has over third party actions.
Technically that's true, yes. The fact that Wizards has very limited control however means that the public has nearly unlimited control of what they can do with it. Practically, it's almost the same thing.
“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 SatieSo happy and relieved that this has come to this conclusion. Thank you everyone who brought us here!
(finger on monkey's paw curls)
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Well, if you want to get into what the OGL is for, it is not just for the SRD but also covers the content of thousands and thousands of products by companies other than WotC. So a "fixed" OGL would still be useful.
But, yes, one of the SRDs under CC is definitely a great step!
A 'fixed' OGL has no effect unless those other companies actually update their products to specify that they're using it, and if they're going to update their products anyway they have other options.
Chris Cao needs to go - non negotiable.
Keep the pressure up, I'll let my subscription lapse until Mr. Micro... "transactional" is gone.
Here's my "rant". I think it bears merit.
"like many" I came back to TTRPGs due to Covid/isolation and 5e was the easiest/most accessible - I had a bunch of stuff from when I was in my early 20s I started with a "used" Red box as a kid and had a bunch of stuff through to 3rd ed when I discovered the other gender, drugs, alcohol etc. Covid landed me in what I'm gonna call the "2nd golden age of TTRPGs" high speed internet, Discord and social interaction that I couldn't get irl (because Covid and a profession that mandated healthcare" we really do have The Tools. Damn, it's not trying to get an after school/college game going and you need to bribe/hassle an extra friend (that's not really "into it") because you need a Cleric in the party - people are just waiting for a game on the other side of the planet - sweet ...and now I have a chance to play "weird stuff" like CoC or whatever that I'd never have hoped for irl - just not practical.
- then Wotc tried to take a dump on that.
My fellow nerds, it's a weird form of social interaction, but it's one where I can be a weirdo too (Radiohead "creep".mp3), but I can pursue my niche interests and that's awesome - a community that can "just make stuff" I'm like a pig in filth.
Wotc/Hasbro exists as an entity and cool, make money, but if it takes a bunch of literate + motivated nerds to exercise their spending power to beat that into the Corporation - tough poop to the shareholders and Executives... look at what we're asking/demanding/threatening to withhold (our disposable incomes from) and decide if that fits your business model and short/long term aims...
If the two don't marry, then we have a situation like we've had - as others have said, it's corporate strategy. Do the execs annual bonuses get reflected in this situation? We're dealing with a bunch of people that are already looking at their next position in another company - because that's how it works for them, their "value" (how they perceive their value) is in how they see their position/potential earnings annually and how they can trade that off in "their next job" in the "next corporate entity" - that's just how the job market works micro/macro - no different for you or I - If I do well in my current job role, how does that affect my long term earning potential? - and these people answers to shareholders in the short term It would be "super nice" to see people that viewed their job roles in my favourite "niche hobby" in the long term and also wanted it to be a healthy environment for the people "emotionally invested" in it... I think that's the "best" long term strategy for "the hobby" - that's what I want to see (but I'm not an exec, nor shareholder and I've explained how I see their motivation(s)) and I think I'm right ;) For a healthy hobby - it is gonna require "us" the users to be active in guiding how we want to see it - and if that requires us to beat that into Hasbro with the lead pipes/melee weapons of our wallets and our Keyboard Warrior tool kits, let's do it -
I Roll Persuasion but I also Roll Investigation, Steath and Sleight of Hand too and DM - I'll take "Backstab" as a readied action because "fudgikins" to the Executives - I want a healthy hobby - by guile or force I don't think "passively" is going to be ok. Not into the future and Wotc/Hasbro have proven they're not trustworthy with the future of our hobby. "We want to safeguard against Hateful content" cool, me too, but I wish Wotc (and Hasblow by merit of ownership) would stop actually creating it because too lazy/stupid/misguided to employ a proof reader (I know 2, both unemployed irl and you know - remote work 2020s). Pokerface.jpg
* and I realise - I am ranting on the internet - and all the stupidity that involves
but let's pause, take stock -
a) we have some pretty classy tools for actual PLAY - Discord, Skype, Zoom, Foundry Roll20 (lol) and other VTTs are available.
b) we could be looking at an influx of noobs - that we can shape - they're going to be shaped by how we interact, not only with them, but within "the hobby". We're the damn Guardians of "the hobby" The Warriors, Wizards with the wherewithall the protect the sacred texts. Not them.
- if we got a bunch of noobs that want to be "sneaky thieves" because "cool movie" sweet, that's awesome. but maybe those noobs "grew up on" Harry Potter/Narnia/The Hunger Games... Scott Bakker... etc. etc. and they can be guided towards games and systems that scratch that particular itch - because we're in an age where that IS accessible so long as Wotc or "mega-corp" don't take a dump on it those noobs aren't likely the Jocks/cool kids/sports kids etc. - they're young us and we can give them homes where they can be a Detective that wields magic(Dresden dude) or Harry Potter etc. and that will give our niche hobby healthy longevity - and I WISH I had that as a tween/teen/young adult.
THIS IS THE GAME that fired my imagination as an 8 year old boy. This IS the thing that got me into reading novels and doing better at school and passively learning vocabulary. Amongst all the wonderful things books gave me D&D is the one thing that's had a stunning impact on my personal development because of all the stuff that came with it. I would never have been able to comprehend The Diary of Anne Frank without that starting passion for literacy before I even understood what literacy really was.
Keep the pressure up on Wotc and Hasbro and crappy Executives that don't care - we've got noobs to welcome - they've got homes to find and our weird niche hobby is worth far more than annual bonuses - because we can give lifelong bonuses to the kids that read Hunger Games or Dresden or Narnia etc. Those things are out there and deserve protecting too even if that's secondary to Hasbro policy or Chris CaCao's bonus.
...and we fight, we have not won the war. We have won this battle and we shall not stop until a skinny nerd that can't play sports picks up a book with a group of friends irl or online - until that skinny kid that's lost in the land of imagination picks up their sacred text and shares it with the world and joins forces within another skinny or obese or trans, or gay - or just a kid that needs a home somewhere with some form of imagination sharing that they wouldn't get anywhere else - when all those damn kids are empowered by imagination and the desire to learn and some tools to DO MORE LEARNING, then we rest - and the Execs can have their bonuses along the way too - so long as it aligns with our goals. It's what our Lord Gygax commanded.
/rant
https://wulfgold.substack.com
Blog - nerd stuff
https://deepdreamgenerator.com/u/wulfgold
A.I. art - also nerd stuff - a gallery of NPC portraits - help yourself.
It's wrong and harmful to silence ideas. Even (maybe especially) the most vile and horrible ones. Those kinds of ideas fester in the dark.
But no one is ever obligated to support, entertain, or distribute offensive material; the opposite is true. If WotC wised up and began to run D&D Beyond (and the VTT) more like Steam or the Apple store, they could and should ensure that nothing terrible is passed on through their online store. Other distributors have similar rules.
It is the responsibility of every member of a society to reject bad ideas. Expecting one group - whether a panel, or a company, or a group of companies - to do this work on society's behalf is asking for trouble. It is work, and it's not always pleasant for those of us who are impacted, but it's not something we can safely delegate, either.
I don't see them doing this for a few reasons.
1) The new OGL was meant to run in line with the new version of DnD this whole thing was because of the new DnD edition that is coming, it was not specifically about 5E
2) 6th edition DnD Wizards have confirmed is not an entire new game. Wizards will struggle to create a new SRD and OGL for what they have themselves confirmed is a fully backward compatible system. If they where making a new edition of DnD that was incompatible with 5th edition and required an entirely new SRD to cover the mechanics then they could argue for a new OGL as the game itself is entirely different.
3) Finally the backlash if they did this would kill the new system before it was even printed. People would just stick to 5th edition and 3rd party publishers would continue making material for that keeping it new and updated, meaning that, in terms of fantasy based D20 systems, Wizards would be in competition with both Pathfinder and themselves for the new system. Any one DnD changes that people liked a 3rd party could make a sourcebook to add to 5th edition.
Section 9 of 1.0a allows using content originally licensed with 1.0a under a hypothetical 1.0b presuming it's still an actual copyleft Open Gaming License rather than the "just licensing D&D but calling it OGL" attempts we just had. I believe pretty much all copyleft licenses have similar provisions that state the content is usable by later versions of the license.
Hear, Hear
I mean there are literal children playing this game, so ...
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
And even if nobody was allowed to publish terrible stuff, the DM can introduce it themselves, so stopping publishers wouldn't have an impact since the last couple of decades have shown that the gaming community already rejects terrible published content. All the terrible DM stories come from stuff the DM made up.
A company policing 3rd party content is a solution in search of a problem.
Historical evidence is that successful private restrictions on socially unacceptable content have worked by targeting distribution channels. To look at large examples:
It's not likely that any restrictions by WotC would have been more effective than those anyway.
You do realize that Hasbro is a publicly traded LLC, right? So it does not even have to be changes in staff, management or being sold to put the powers you not just want to grant them but demand they need to be given to them to fall in the hands of people who ban your content and make the stuff you want to be banned, just needs a large investor. More realistically it would be a market -- like the Chinese maybe having a different view of whatever matters to you? But wait, actually there could be an investor. At them moment the Middle East's princes buy all kinds of stuff. Maybe tomorrow D&D needs to become Sharia-compatible (and everything else being banned). And so forth. You can't prevent total corporate control most of the time, but why you would aggressively demand all power over morality needs to be given to WotC is beyond me.
Stopping everything shady is the wrong goal. Read some history books. It goes badly when people do that. Bottom line, there are going to be people with different value systems than yours express themselves in the marketplace and that is normal and acceptable.