"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Ben would 100 percent have been a bard main
I don't know, Artificer with proficiency in persuasion makes a strong case.
Bards get the chicks
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)
So I have an extremely dumb question about today's announcement. It says "You choose which you prefer to use."
I thought the original OGL and SRD were basically symbiotic/connected licenses and documents? That any third party creating 5E-compatible content and using the OGL was also agreeing to operate under the terms of the SRD?
But today's announcement makes it an either/or thing...so was it always? Is that new?
Both the OGL and the Creative Commons license have terms any prospective user must abide by in order to not violate the license and invite legal trouble. Those terms are different between OGL and CC, especially since CC is an actual, professionally written legal document as opposed to OGL 1.0a. A company can decide which set of terms they wish to operate under by deciding which license to utilize the SRD under - OGL or Creative Commons.
1.0a was written by professionals, including lawyers.
Seriously, you may not agree with the minimalist, open design but slinging insults about its quality is juvenile.
Its served its purpose well for decades, and does way more than you give it credit for to take away rights from people who would abuse it - its important to remember that publishing under 1.0a takes away options you'd have under publishing with no license so far as associating with DnD goes.
Remember, the options Bad Actors have now with 1.0a are to either publish under 1.0a, and surrender all rights to associate with DnD OR publish with no license, and risk WotC coming down on them with every lawyer they can bring to bear.
I stayed with 3.5 after 4e came out because I didn’t like the system. It was a few years after the release of 5e before I switched to it. Just because it’s the newest edition doest make it a better one. 2e taught me that.
I personally think that taking a chance that a few 'bad' books getting through by keeping the 3PP able and secure to produce content is worth the potential down the road. Will someone abuse it, hell yah... but at the same time, what any two people believe is hateful can be complete opposites and I honestly believe (including what I'm putting in this post) there is nothing that is ever said by anyone that doesn't find offense with someone else. Hell, even not saying something can be considered offensive, so it is a darned if you do, darned if you don't scenario. Personally, I'd rather err on the side of the ability to express oneself than live in constant fear of being 'cancelled'.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
And we have a sterling example of the exact attitude that will cause this "community" to embrace hateful content. "Nobody can decide what 'hateful' is, and you can't ever do anything that won't offend somebody, so why bother trying not to offend people? Publish anything, and let people buy what they want!" I've seen too many people openly support hate, discrimination, bigotry and exclusion on this very website to believe that The Community can do what Kyle asked us to do and defend D&D from this sort of shit.
Guess I better get used to it. Was nice to actually feel like I could safely play the game for a while.
No, what I'm saying is you can not legislate it, you will NEVER get consensus on what the phrase means. And yes, what I find hateful and what you find hateful can in fact be complete opposites. Personally, I'd rather trust the community than to assume that everyone is actively attempting to be the most hateful person they can be...
And I do believe that everything that anyone says will be found offensive by someone, whether it is or isn't offensive, if it hasn't been, then it just hasn't hit that person yet. That is the nature of our society now. Heck, even our society can't decide on what is hateful, offensive and obscene, because it is all personal.
Now, don't get me wrong, I understand your standpoint, you are worried someone will do something irredeemable, something that will put a negative light on what we have to be honest, is a very niche hobby (even with its growth) and I do respect that. But assuming something will happen just because it can happen and trying to tie that to vague notions and destroy the ability of others to augment the game in ways that WotC either won't or can't do, will do more damage to the game in the long term than some idiot who is trying to use the game to make a hateful statement. Maybe it is my hope that we would be able to rally around and stop the 'really bad stuff' while not stifling the creativeness of the community.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." B.F. - Yes, I think it was about taxes, but in the broadest sense, we would have paid them too. Ah and good move from WotC.
Thank you, Wizards. I try to judge based on what you do, and you have done the right thing for players and publishers of D&D 5e content here in the end. The lost trust is not instantly restored, but it's a great start.
I'll be watching with interest what you do in relation to One D&D in the future, and judge it on its own merits.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Ben would 100 percent have been a bard main
I don't know, Artificer with proficiency in persuasion makes a strong case.
Bards get the chicks
But Artificers invent bifocals and lightning rods. Anyone can get the chicks, it's all about the confidence.
See! Now. this is the kind of conversation we should be having on these boards. I really look forward to getting back to it. Honestly, at this point, I'd take an alignment thread.
So I have an extremely dumb question about today's announcement. It says "You choose which you prefer to use."
I thought the original OGL and SRD were basically symbiotic/connected licenses and documents? That any third party creating 5E-compatible content and using the OGL was also agreeing to operate under the terms of the SRD?
But today's announcement makes it an either/or thing...so was it always? Is that new?
Both the OGL and the Creative Commons license have terms any prospective user must abide by in order to not violate the license and invite legal trouble. Those terms are different between OGL and CC, especially since CC is an actual, professionally written legal document as opposed to OGL 1.0a. A company can decide which set of terms they wish to operate under by deciding which license to utilize the SRD under - OGL or Creative Commons.
1.0a was written by professionals, including lawyers.
Seriously, you may not agree with the minimalist, open design but slinging insults about its quality is juvenile.
Its served its purpose well for decades, and does way more than you give it credit for to take away rights from people who would abuse it - its important to remember that publishing under 1.0a takes away options you'd have under publishing with no license so far as associating with DnD goes.
Remember, the options Bad Actors have now with 1.0a are to either publish under 1.0a, and surrender all rights to associate with DnD OR publish with no license, and risk WotC coming down on them with every lawyer they can bring to bear.
At least one lawyer I follow (Legal Eagle) feels 1.0 is a very badly written license. The impression I get is that Hasbro bought WotC for MtG and considered D&D mostly a write off at the time so didn't put a lot of thought (or lawyer hours) into it.
No, he thought it was pointless because he wasn't looking at it in the context of the original document - it was intended to be a Peace Treaty more than absolutely rock solid legal document.
I love Legal Eagle, but there's context to the document his evaluation didn't take into account. He was looking at it from the point of view of, "I don't need this document to make content." (which is true) rather than "This is a promise not to sue so long as you don't try and damage our good name by association."
Good. My criteria for future support have been met. In good faith I am resubscribing. WOTC if you're reading this, I am satisfied with this, however, I will be paying closer attention now, as trust has been seriously damaged. I will not put up with egregious increases to the cost of DndBeyond subscriptions -or- to any micro transaction nonsense that tries to make dnd pay to win. You will win my financial support through making quality content. If you -really- want to make secure your position at the pinnacle of ttrpgs, I recommend that you go the route of Steam instead of Apple. Steam is loved. Apple is hated.
Make your vtt accessible to 3rd party content creators in such a way that you create a hub of activity, and the community will love you. Personally, I prefer pencil and paper. Don't forget about me please. Vtts are great and all but they aren't everything. Good on ya for taking the feedback and doing what needed doing. Please don't stop here. Look into how this happened and course correct for the future.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Ben would 100 percent have been a bard main
I don't know, Artificer with proficiency in persuasion makes a strong case.
Bards get the chicks
But Artificers invent bifocals and lightning rods. Anyone can get the chicks, it's all about the confidence.
See! Now. this is the kind of conversation we should be having on these boards. I really look forward to getting back to it. Honestly, at this point, I'd take an alignment thread.
We're talking about what kind of character Ben Franklin would create as a D&D player. We're not making Ben Franklin as a D&D character
Ben Franklin would play a bard. He was an artificer in real life
For similar reasons, Albert Einstein would play something outdoors-y like a ranger, rather than playing a wizard
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)
Honestly shocked that WotC/Hasbro reversed so hard on a new OGL.
The lack of a hateful conduct provision is THE major downside of this reversal, but I don't agree with blaming this loss entirely on the community. WotC messed up so catastrophically w.r.t. to the leaked OGL, and even some parts of the proposed Version 1.2, that THEY basically forced the only objectively good change to be a casualty of their reversal.
I see some posters here chastising fans and the community for caring more about the freedom of a license than the bigotry that is allowed under that license. And I absolutely agree that the inability to legally prevent hateful content is a loss. But if that's how you feel about the community, you need to wag that same finger WotC's way. If their primary goal was to protect the community and their game from bigots, this was probably the worst way they could have gone about doing so, and their own actions caused irreparable harm to achieving that goal any time soon.
..."This is a promise not to sue so long as you don't try and damage our good name by association."
Y'know...except now, with the Creative Commons license, people can damage D&D's good name as much as they please and Wizards has no redress or recourse. Nor does the community. Because people wanted an irrevocable license out of everyone's control. So now 5e is perpetually and irrevocably vulnerable to hate, discrimination, and exclusionism and there's actually factually legally ****-all bupkis nada anybody at all can do about any of it.
On the plus side we won't be stopped from creating content that Wizards could decided is too "controversial" to be associated with, morality clauses swing hard with political winds and its not hard to imagine them being turned as a weapon against minority communities. I'm stuck here on Terf island and the current line of attack is lobbying companies to erase LGBTQ+ people from advertising and product targeting under the accusation that they are indoctrinating youths and normalizing deviant behaviour, there nothing to say wizards couldn't fall foul of a similar movement in the US.
There ye go. Source cited. Wizards cannot contest any use of the SRD for any reason, no matter how heinous. Literally anyone can publish literally anything they want and Wizards has to smile, nod, and say "Yep, we sure do support that usage of our valuable IP."
But Artificers invent bifocals and lightning rods. Anyone can get the chicks, it's all about the confidence.
See! Now. this is the kind of conversation we should be having on these boards. I really look forward to getting back to it. Honestly, at this point, I'd take an alignment thread.
We're talking about what kind of character Ben Franklin would create as a D&D player. We're not making Ben Franklin as a D&D character
Ben Franklin would play a bard. He was an artificer in real life
For similar reasons, Albert Einstein would play something outdoors-y like a ranger, rather than playing a wizard
Oh, make. I see.
That's a solid argument, but from what I understand, BF was quite the lady's man, irl, and of course, he was a diplomat, so Bard is a lot like himself, too. Problem is, he did so damn many things, it's hard to pick one he didn't do. I guess some kind of melee type? But some people do like to play characters more like themselves. In that case, he could go Storm Sorcerer to really scratch the electricity itch.
I though Einstein liked camping. If he's going against type, then he's a goliath barbarian. Or a 3e Half-orc barbarian, back when they still got the int penalty.
Y'know...except now, with the Creative Commons license, people can damage D&D's good name as much as they please and Wizards has no redress or recourse.
The key part of CC-BY-4.0 is
No endorsement. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected with, or sponsored, endorsed, or granted official status by, the Licensor or others designated to receive attribution as provided in Section 3(a)(1)(A)(i).
The text in the SRD associated with that license includes an attribution block
Please do not include any other attribution regarding Wizards other than that provided above. You may, however, include a statement on your work that it is “compatible with fifth edition” or “5E compatible.”
That is not meaningless text; if a third party tries to imply any endorsement of Wizards beyond what is permitted above:
Their license automatically terminates (under 6(A) of CC-BY-4.0) so Wizards can sue to shut them down.
They're probably in violation of Wizards' trademarks so Wizards can sue for that as well.
..."This is a promise not to sue so long as you don't try and damage our good name by association."
Y'know...except now, with the Creative Commons license, people can damage D&D's good name as much as they please and Wizards has no redress or recourse. Nor does the community. Because people wanted an irrevocable license out of everyone's control. So now 5e is perpetually and irrevocably vulnerable to hate, discrimination, and exclusionism and there's actually factually legally ****-all bupkis nada anybody at all can do about any of it.
That's gonna be just so great.
I assume someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the OGL allows creators to use the D&D name, logo, or other protected ID. So a bad actor would not be confused with WotC unless they used WotC's IP to publish in which case WotC could sue even without protections in the OGL.
I keep seeing people saying that OGL1.0a allows publishers to make horrible things and be connected to D&D. I'd like to know how.
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?
..."This is a promise not to sue so long as you don't try and damage our good name by association."
Y'know...except now, with the Creative Commons license, people can damage D&D's good name as much as they please and Wizards has no redress or recourse. Nor does the community. Because people wanted an irrevocable license out of everyone's control. So now 5e is perpetually and irrevocably vulnerable to hate, discrimination, and exclusionism and there's actually factually legally ****-all bupkis nada anybody at all can do about any of it.
..."This is a promise not to sue so long as you don't try and damage our good name by association."
Y'know...except now, with the Creative Commons license, people can damage D&D's good name as much as they please and Wizards has no redress or recourse. Nor does the community. Because people wanted an irrevocable license out of everyone's control. So now 5e is perpetually and irrevocably vulnerable to hate, discrimination, and exclusionism and there's actually factually legally ****-all bupkis nada anybody at all can do about any of it.
That's gonna be just so great.
Simple. If there is D&D with that dragon on it and WotC logo on the back you attribute the Hadozee to WotC. If not you attribute the straight out of 1960 racism to TSR, and let the courts tell them to shredder it if they use any other WotC IP that is still protected as it always was.
Should you really not be just trolling how about you make your case, example or hypothetical, both will do?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Bards get the chicks
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)
1.0a was written by professionals, including lawyers.
Seriously, you may not agree with the minimalist, open design but slinging insults about its quality is juvenile.
Its served its purpose well for decades, and does way more than you give it credit for to take away rights from people who would abuse it - its important to remember that publishing under 1.0a takes away options you'd have under publishing with no license so far as associating with DnD goes.
Remember, the options Bad Actors have now with 1.0a are to either publish under 1.0a, and surrender all rights to associate with DnD OR publish with no license, and risk WotC coming down on them with every lawyer they can bring to bear.
I stayed with 3.5 after 4e came out because I didn’t like the system. It was a few years after the release of 5e before I switched to it. Just because it’s the newest edition doest make it a better one. 2e taught me that.
Thank you WotC, if no more tricks await us here, this was a really good decision for all of us.
No, what I'm saying is you can not legislate it, you will NEVER get consensus on what the phrase means. And yes, what I find hateful and what you find hateful can in fact be complete opposites. Personally, I'd rather trust the community than to assume that everyone is actively attempting to be the most hateful person they can be...
And I do believe that everything that anyone says will be found offensive by someone, whether it is or isn't offensive, if it hasn't been, then it just hasn't hit that person yet. That is the nature of our society now. Heck, even our society can't decide on what is hateful, offensive and obscene, because it is all personal.
Now, don't get me wrong, I understand your standpoint, you are worried someone will do something irredeemable, something that will put a negative light on what we have to be honest, is a very niche hobby (even with its growth) and I do respect that. But assuming something will happen just because it can happen and trying to tie that to vague notions and destroy the ability of others to augment the game in ways that WotC either won't or can't do, will do more damage to the game in the long term than some idiot who is trying to use the game to make a hateful statement. Maybe it is my hope that we would be able to rally around and stop the 'really bad stuff' while not stifling the creativeness of the community.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." B.F. - Yes, I think it was about taxes, but in the broadest sense, we would have paid them too. Ah and good move from WotC.
Thank you, Wizards. I try to judge based on what you do, and you have done the right thing for players and publishers of D&D 5e content here in the end. The lost trust is not instantly restored, but it's a great start.
I'll be watching with interest what you do in relation to One D&D in the future, and judge it on its own merits.
But Artificers invent bifocals and lightning rods. Anyone can get the chicks, it's all about the confidence.
See! Now. this is the kind of conversation we should be having on these boards. I really look forward to getting back to it. Honestly, at this point, I'd take an alignment thread.
No, he thought it was pointless because he wasn't looking at it in the context of the original document - it was intended to be a Peace Treaty more than absolutely rock solid legal document.
I love Legal Eagle, but there's context to the document his evaluation didn't take into account. He was looking at it from the point of view of, "I don't need this document to make content." (which is true) rather than "This is a promise not to sue so long as you don't try and damage our good name by association."
I would too. And that's saying something considering how stressful those threads are, especially since I always get involved on them.
(Maybe the mods will lock this stressful thread if we get it off-topic enough. JK. I would never wish for such a thing. ;) )
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.Good. My criteria for future support have been met. In good faith I am resubscribing. WOTC if you're reading this, I am satisfied with this, however, I will be paying closer attention now, as trust has been seriously damaged. I will not put up with egregious increases to the cost of DndBeyond subscriptions -or- to any micro transaction nonsense that tries to make dnd pay to win. You will win my financial support through making quality content. If you -really- want to make secure your position at the pinnacle of ttrpgs, I recommend that you go the route of Steam instead of Apple. Steam is loved. Apple is hated.
Make your vtt accessible to 3rd party content creators in such a way that you create a hub of activity, and the community will love you. Personally, I prefer pencil and paper. Don't forget about me please. Vtts are great and all but they aren't everything. Good on ya for taking the feedback and doing what needed doing. Please don't stop here. Look into how this happened and course correct for the future.
We're talking about what kind of character Ben Franklin would create as a D&D player. We're not making Ben Franklin as a D&D character
Ben Franklin would play a bard. He was an artificer in real life
For similar reasons, Albert Einstein would play something outdoors-y like a ranger, rather than playing a wizard
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)
Honestly shocked that WotC/Hasbro reversed so hard on a new OGL.
The lack of a hateful conduct provision is THE major downside of this reversal, but I don't agree with blaming this loss entirely on the community. WotC messed up so catastrophically w.r.t. to the leaked OGL, and even some parts of the proposed Version 1.2, that THEY basically forced the only objectively good change to be a casualty of their reversal.
I see some posters here chastising fans and the community for caring more about the freedom of a license than the bigotry that is allowed under that license. And I absolutely agree that the inability to legally prevent hateful content is a loss. But if that's how you feel about the community, you need to wag that same finger WotC's way. If their primary goal was to protect the community and their game from bigots, this was probably the worst way they could have gone about doing so, and their own actions caused irreparable harm to achieving that goal any time soon.
Y'know...except now, with the Creative Commons license, people can damage D&D's good name as much as they please and Wizards has no redress or recourse. Nor does the community. Because people wanted an irrevocable license out of everyone's control. So now 5e is perpetually and irrevocably vulnerable to hate, discrimination, and exclusionism and there's actually factually legally ****-all bupkis nada anybody at all can do about any of it.
That's gonna be just so great.
Please do not contact or message me.
On the plus side we won't be stopped from creating content that Wizards could decided is too "controversial" to be associated with, morality clauses swing hard with political winds and its not hard to imagine them being turned as a weapon against minority communities. I'm stuck here on Terf island and the current line of attack is lobbying companies to erase LGBTQ+ people from advertising and product targeting under the accusation that they are indoctrinating youths and normalizing deviant behaviour, there nothing to say wizards couldn't fall foul of a similar movement in the US.
There ye go. Source cited. Wizards cannot contest any use of the SRD for any reason, no matter how heinous. Literally anyone can publish literally anything they want and Wizards has to smile, nod, and say "Yep, we sure do support that usage of our valuable IP."
Which, as stated, is gonna be just so great.
Please do not contact or message me.
Oh, make. I see.
That's a solid argument, but from what I understand, BF was quite the lady's man, irl, and of course, he was a diplomat, so Bard is a lot like himself, too. Problem is, he did so damn many things, it's hard to pick one he didn't do. I guess some kind of melee type? But some people do like to play characters more like themselves. In that case, he could go Storm Sorcerer to really scratch the electricity itch.
I though Einstein liked camping. If he's going against type, then he's a goliath barbarian. Or a 3e Half-orc barbarian, back when they still got the int penalty.
The key part of CC-BY-4.0 is
The text in the SRD associated with that license includes an attribution block
That is not meaningless text; if a third party tries to imply any endorsement of Wizards beyond what is permitted above:
I assume someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the OGL allows creators to use the D&D name, logo, or other protected ID. So a bad actor would not be confused with WotC unless they used WotC's IP to publish in which case WotC could sue even without protections in the OGL.
I keep seeing people saying that OGL1.0a allows publishers to make horrible things and be connected to D&D. I'd like to know how.
"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?
Simple. If there is D&D with that dragon on it and WotC logo on the back you attribute the Hadozee to WotC. If not you attribute the straight out of 1960 racism to TSR, and let the courts tell them to shredder it if they use any other WotC IP that is still protected as it always was.
Should you really not be just trolling how about you make your case, example or hypothetical, both will do?