Since 1.0a is remaining "untouched", does that mean that wotc can simply try to un-authorize again it at a later date, since the word "irrevocable" was NOT added?
It would be irrelevant, since it's also released under CC. It's worth asking about the state of the 3.0 and 3.5 SRDs, but there's nothing left to fight about for 5th edition.
Since 1.0a is remaining "untouched", does that mean that wotc can simply try to un-authorize again it at a later date, since the word "irrevocable" was NOT added?
Yes.
Although to be fair, they could have still tried to un-authorize it in the future even if the word "irrevocable" HAD been added.
Their original plan was apparently to sue dissenters into oblivion regardless of whether or not they had the "right" to do so anyway. Meaning they pretty much demonstrated that relying on ANY document to keep you safe from them would only work as long as the community had the will to back up that document; we all know now that the legalese on their OGL is effectively just for show.
That's exactly what they did. What more does everyone want from WotC, holy cow ...
It's clear at this point that some people's goal was to kill WOTC for reasons that had nothing to do with the OGL or 3PPs, and thus nothing WOTC does will be satisfactory
It is also pretty clear at this point that WotC is run by suits who care more for squeezing us for cash than fostering a great community. Now they have a chance to redeem themselves. But they have a long way to go to regain the community's trust.
Hasbro and the WotC C-Suite broke my heart. Now here they come like an abusive lover, saying "I never meant to hurt you..."
The CC fixes the one real problem 1.0a had -- not being under iron clad stewardship. This should be fine. And those who say 6e will still be under a terrible license: cannot work as nobody would join as SRD is the carot if provided and there is no more sticks with the current now being under CC. This seems to have gone from sh.. show of a generation straight to TTRPG history.
Well, that was rather anti-climactic. And honestly it’s likely just a stop-gap, not a resolution. Hopefully this at least gives both sides enough time to cool down and WotC enough time to put together something a bit better defined for whatever license they come up with for 1D&D. Personally I do think it would be better for everyone if we had a license that actually defined the terms used and allows WotC to more tangibly distance themselves from a truly problematic 3PP if one crops up (or should I say “when” now that the issue has had a spotlight shone on it and WotC has backed down from a position that would let them take action for the time being), but hopefully this will at least cut down on the torches and pitchforks mentality here.
I would say for most... especially those who are creating new content for Dnd 5e like myself, we now only have to worry about CC-BY-4.0 for the most part.
There will be some creators who have product under 1.0a and they will need to decide to stick with that or move to the new CC-BY-4.0.
For most people, the SRD is the big take away that is now available in the CC-BY-4.0. This is huge.
Even if they scrap the current plans for One DnD, or decide to no longer support 5e online, etc.. it will still live on through creators, much like 3.5e and D20 have.
I would hope that 5e remains compatible with One DnD.. if it does, that is just icing on the cake.
Now that the SRD 5e is on CC-BY-4.0, it is there forever.
Well, that was rather anti-climactic. And honestly it’s likely just a stop-gap, not a resolution. Hopefully this at least gives both sides enough time to cool down and WotC enough time to put together something a bit better defined for whatever license they come up with for 1D&D. Personally I do think it would be better for everyone if we had a license that actually defined the terms used and allows WotC to more tangibly distance themselves from a truly problematic 3PP if one crops up (or should I say “when” now that the issue has had a spotlight shone on it and WotC has backed down from a position that would let them take action for the time being), but hopefully this will at least cut down on the torches and pitchforks mentality here.
Facepalm. Besides that: that is where you have trademarks. If it is having a D&D Dragon and Wizards of the Coast you attribute it to WotC and Hasbro and if not -- not. That was always a strawman and never a problem.
Since 1.0a is remaining "untouched", does that mean that wotc can simply try to un-authorize again it at a later date, since the word "irrevocable" was NOT added?
It's moot if they release the SRD under creative commons (which is a better license anyways, not written sloppily). They can fire the OGL into the sea for all it matters. The meat & potatoes is in the SRD & the ball is out of their court.
Honestly the ORC should be released under creative commons too if they're genuine, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.
Well good because I didn't want to leave D&DB and will reup my subscription in a few days. I was in the process of looking into PF2e and that was WAY too crunchy for my table.
Well, that was rather anti-climactic. And honestly it’s likely just a stop-gap, not a resolution. Hopefully this at least gives both sides enough time to cool down and WotC enough time to put together something a bit better defined for whatever license they come up with for 1D&D. Personally I do think it would be better for everyone if we had a license that actually defined the terms used and allows WotC to more tangibly distance themselves from a truly problematic 3PP if one crops up (or should I say “when” now that the issue has had a spotlight shone on it and WotC has backed down from a position that would let them take action for the time being), but hopefully this will at least cut down on the torches and pitchforks mentality here.
Facepalm. Besides that: that is where you have trademarks. If it is having a D&D Dragon and Wizards of the Coast you attribute it to WotC and Hasbro and if not -- not. That was always a strawman and never a problem.
Having a license still makes for a spicy headline, even if it’s obvious to anyone who takes a second glance that it’s just the product of an isolated crank with too much time on their hands. How do you think the “Satanic Panic” got rolling? I’m not expecting the sky to start falling from it, but I’m also not expecting all of the trolls out there to take a pass on this.
The bad news: I wouldn't be shocked if Hasbro moves One D&D into a license that is worse for third party creators like they moved 4e into the Game System License, so there will likely be a dearth of content for One D&D like there was a dearth of content for 4e.
The great news: I don't have to worry because third party creators can continue to create content for 5e under the OGL, so I can stay with 5e if content for One D&D dries up, then reevaluate five years from now once One D&D transitions to 7e.
The first thing I would like to point out is that Wizards of the Coast listened to the community's concerns and did everything in their power to please us. There will probably be screaming and rampaging about how terrible Wizards is, about how horrible their goals were and how they sought to destroy the world with Evil Killer Robot Lawyers. Before all this starts, I just wanted to point out that Wizards of the Coast listened and there really isn't much - if anything - to worry about at this point.
I am sure there will be some people getting angry and worried over this just for the sake of getting worked up. But there is nothing to upset anyone anymore, and it would be clear that any more hate in order to "protect" third-party publishers at this point is just hate on Wizards of the Coast, not actually anything logical and important.
In the coming years, there will almost certainly be hateful, racist, and obscene content released under Open Game License 1.0. In the Star Frontiers lawsuit, we have seen that there are those who would seek to use our game to hurt others in the cruelest ways imaginable. Now, Wizards of the Coast has clearly and loudly announced to bigots such as Ernest Gygax (son of Gary Gygax) that their legal contract has a loophole that can be used as a legal shield to harm others.
Only a fool would believe that people such as Ernest will not take this opportunity to spread their hateful voices and ways. In the coming years, it is possible - even likely - that a major problem will develop where people stick the D&D brand name upon their published works and use our game to hurt, belittle, and demean others.
We the community bear full responsibility for the people who will be harmed by this. Our voices have indirectly supported those who would seek to use our hobby and game for their hateful and horrid ways. The works that harm others will likely be online and protected forever, since Wizards will almost certainly never change the License for already published works, even if they do eventually decide to modify 1.0.
So, you may have got what you wanted here. But your inability to compromise and at least allow an anti-hate clause may cause others great suffering and misery. This day may be a happy one for you, but I dare wonder how happy it is for many of the people who will be directly hurt by this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Optimistic, but I don't trust them--they burned all good will.
This looks like a tactical retreat rather than a full on win.
Celebrate for now, but be vigilant--shadows lurk.
Personal Thoughts: The bridge is burnt, you still won't get any money from me. Even with this gesture (which you couldn't and shouldn't have done in the first place).
I mean, 1.2 did allow products to associate more directly with D&D than what we currently have now, using things like the dragon ampersand. I’m not expecting more than a sideshow to come from this, same as whenever the moral guardians decide to take a run at video games, but I do expect all the drama has attracted attention from trolls and bad actors.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thanks, WotC.
Still skeptical, but am now no longer beyond hope that you'll be able to earn my trust back.
This would be my guess.
If anything created for 5e is compatible with One Dnd (6e), like they have said it will be, then it does not matter that much really...
It would be irrelevant, since it's also released under CC. It's worth asking about the state of the 3.0 and 3.5 SRDs, but there's nothing left to fight about for 5th edition.
Yes.
Although to be fair, they could have still tried to un-authorize it in the future even if the word "irrevocable" HAD been added.
Their original plan was apparently to sue dissenters into oblivion regardless of whether or not they had the "right" to do so anyway. Meaning they pretty much demonstrated that relying on ANY document to keep you safe from them would only work as long as the community had the will to back up that document; we all know now that the legalese on their OGL is effectively just for show.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
Actually, there is one. It's just not named 'OGL'. CC-BY-4.0 does everything people wanted from the OGL.
It is also pretty clear at this point that WotC is run by suits who care more for squeezing us for cash than fostering a great community.
Now they have a chance to redeem themselves. But they have a long way to go to regain the community's trust.
Hasbro and the WotC C-Suite broke my heart. Now here they come like an abusive lover, saying "I never meant to hurt you..."
The CC fixes the one real problem 1.0a had -- not being under iron clad stewardship. This should be fine. And those who say 6e will still be under a terrible license: cannot work as nobody would join as SRD is the carot if provided and there is no more sticks with the current now being under CC. This seems to have gone from sh.. show of a generation straight to TTRPG history.
Time for some celebration.
Well, that was rather anti-climactic. And honestly it’s likely just a stop-gap, not a resolution. Hopefully this at least gives both sides enough time to cool down and WotC enough time to put together something a bit better defined for whatever license they come up with for 1D&D. Personally I do think it would be better for everyone if we had a license that actually defined the terms used and allows WotC to more tangibly distance themselves from a truly problematic 3PP if one crops up (or should I say “when” now that the issue has had a spotlight shone on it and WotC has backed down from a position that would let them take action for the time being), but hopefully this will at least cut down on the torches and pitchforks mentality here.
I would say for most... especially those who are creating new content for Dnd 5e like myself, we now only have to worry about CC-BY-4.0 for the most part.
There will be some creators who have product under 1.0a and they will need to decide to stick with that or move to the new CC-BY-4.0.
For most people, the SRD is the big take away that is now available in the CC-BY-4.0. This is huge.
Even if they scrap the current plans for One DnD, or decide to no longer support 5e online, etc.. it will still live on through creators, much like 3.5e and D20 have.
I would hope that 5e remains compatible with One DnD.. if it does, that is just icing on the cake.
Now that the SRD 5e is on CC-BY-4.0, it is there forever.
Facepalm. Besides that: that is where you have trademarks. If it is having a D&D Dragon and Wizards of the Coast you attribute it to WotC and Hasbro and if not -- not. That was always a strawman and never a problem.
It's moot if they release the SRD under creative commons (which is a better license anyways, not written sloppily). They can fire the OGL into the sea for all it matters. The meat & potatoes is in the SRD & the ball is out of their court.
Honestly the ORC should be released under creative commons too if they're genuine, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.
Because Robots.
Well good because I didn't want to leave D&DB and will reup my subscription in a few days. I was in the process of looking into PF2e and that was WAY too crunchy for my table.
Having a license still makes for a spicy headline, even if it’s obvious to anyone who takes a second glance that it’s just the product of an isolated crank with too much time on their hands. How do you think the “Satanic Panic” got rolling? I’m not expecting the sky to start falling from it, but I’m also not expecting all of the trolls out there to take a pass on this.
The bad news: I wouldn't be shocked if Hasbro moves One D&D into a license that is worse for third party creators like they moved 4e into the Game System License, so there will likely be a dearth of content for One D&D like there was a dearth of content for 4e.
The great news: I don't have to worry because third party creators can continue to create content for 5e under the OGL, so I can stay with 5e if content for One D&D dries up, then reevaluate five years from now once One D&D transitions to 7e.
Awesome. I can now look forward to seeing the movie when it drops.
Thanks for coming around on this WotC.
The first thing I would like to point out is that Wizards of the Coast listened to the community's concerns and did everything in their power to please us. There will probably be screaming and rampaging about how terrible Wizards is, about how horrible their goals were and how they sought to destroy the world with Evil Killer Robot Lawyers. Before all this starts, I just wanted to point out that Wizards of the Coast listened and there really isn't much - if anything - to worry about at this point.
I am sure there will be some people getting angry and worried over this just for the sake of getting worked up. But there is nothing to upset anyone anymore, and it would be clear that any more hate in order to "protect" third-party publishers at this point is just hate on Wizards of the Coast, not actually anything logical and important.
In the coming years, there will almost certainly be hateful, racist, and obscene content released under Open Game License 1.0. In the Star Frontiers lawsuit, we have seen that there are those who would seek to use our game to hurt others in the cruelest ways imaginable. Now, Wizards of the Coast has clearly and loudly announced to bigots such as Ernest Gygax (son of Gary Gygax) that their legal contract has a loophole that can be used as a legal shield to harm others.
Only a fool would believe that people such as Ernest will not take this opportunity to spread their hateful voices and ways. In the coming years, it is possible - even likely - that a major problem will develop where people stick the D&D brand name upon their published works and use our game to hurt, belittle, and demean others.
We the community bear full responsibility for the people who will be harmed by this. Our voices have indirectly supported those who would seek to use our hobby and game for their hateful and horrid ways. The works that harm others will likely be online and protected forever, since Wizards will almost certainly never change the License for already published works, even if they do eventually decide to modify 1.0.
So, you may have got what you wanted here. But your inability to compromise and at least allow an anti-hate clause may cause others great suffering and misery. This day may be a happy one for you, but I dare wonder how happy it is for many of the people who will be directly hurt by this.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Very glad to see this. Hopefully lessons have been learned.
Please don't try to block other VTTs and what not.
Make whatever product(s) you plan to make and win on their merits.
If you put out something good & fun I likely will play it (if it doesn't have some kind of restrictive license)...
Apropos of nothing... great Breaking Bad reference. Unless it's not in that case tell me to shut up!
Optimistic, but I don't trust them--they burned all good will.
This looks like a tactical retreat rather than a full on win.
Celebrate for now, but be vigilant--shadows lurk.
Personal Thoughts: The bridge is burnt, you still won't get any money from me. Even with this gesture (which you couldn't and shouldn't have done in the first place).
I mean, 1.2 did allow products to associate more directly with D&D than what we currently have now, using things like the dragon ampersand. I’m not expecting more than a sideshow to come from this, same as whenever the moral guardians decide to take a run at video games, but I do expect all the drama has attracted attention from trolls and bad actors.