Do you not understand the difference between how books are physically bound and how 'artistic' you find them to be?
I wasn't talking about artistry. I was talking about overall quality, and features like full color are part of quality. You may consider them a waste, but the publishing industry does not agree.
This approach is a vast improvement over a 6F clause. I am concerned however about their intent to act as "an amplifier", as ultimately what will be amplified is the content in question. I really don't like the idea of the game becoming a front line in the culture wars. I think the wiser approach is to just ignore provocative content rather than give it the spotlight it craves.
From the Satanic Panic of the 80s to today’s decision to move away from identified historical issues, D&D has been on the front line of culture wars for decades. It hasn’t been their fault - it just seems that folks, be it the moralists of the 80s or the racists of today have decided to make D&D (and Wizards generally—they’ve had both moralist and pro-racism problems with Magic over that game’s history) a target for outrage.
Wizards cannot really control their involvement in culture wars - it isn’t their fault that they cater to a demographic with a disproportionate number of problematic individuals. It should be noted that Wizards is also not alone in this—gaming generally has a white supremacy problem, and both video games and other tabletop games like Warhammer 40k (though Games Workshop brings some of that on themselves due to 40k’s lore) have similar issues with their player bases.
This isn’t a fight Wizards picked - they probably would love to just ignore it. But it is a fight they find themselves in, and they, quite reasonably, do not want their own product and their own speech being co-opted and used for hate.
Seriously? You seriously think a game that has some of the most accepting groups of players and fans is some breeding ground for "white supremacy" and "problematic people"?
The reasoning behind any intended change or improvement to the existing OGL went from being about hate, to being about protecting their intellectual property from the likes of Disney, to now being about bad actors making 'adult entertainment' and dragging the good name of Wizards of the Coast through the mud. Anyone who believes these people are truth-tellers when they can't even get their story straight is someone who loves to be lied to.
That's really only two issues (hate and adult entertainment are both part of clause 6(f)). The other thing to remember is that not everyone in a meeting has the same interests and incentives, nor are everyone's interests going to be publicly stated.
There were really four visible problem strands in the 1.1 OGL:
Can they do this at all? Legally speaking, the answer is maybe, but it should have been obvious from the start that it would be a PR fiasco, because whether or not the 1.0a OGL can be deauthorized, it's obvious that it wasn't intended, and exploiting legal loopholes rarely plays well in public.
Royalties. I'm sure some people were concerned about large competitors, but I'm not inclined to believe that's all they were concerned about, because if they were they'd set the threshold to something like $15M (at which point I'm pretty sure it affects zero competitors, though Paizo is getting close).
Restricting the OGL to Print and Static Media. I assume the digital gaming division was behind that; the books division (which looks to be what Kyle's in charge of) wouldn't care.
Acceptable Content Policy. Honestly, if it wasn't for the other problems, I think this one might have been tolerated; while clause 6(f) does give lots of power to WotC to decide what's acceptable, plenty of other companies have similarly unbalanced content policies.
I assume the reason they're focusing on (4) in their after-the-fact discussion is because it's the one that's mostly likely to be accepted by the community as reasonable.
It was way too broad of a clause. It left all discretion to whomever was reviewing that claim that day. OR if you as the content creator irked the wrong person at WOTC/Hasbro (even in something completely unrelated) and they decided to go look for a problem with your created works (and lets be honest if someone wants to find an issue with something they can always find SOMETHING to make an issue), it gave them at WOTC way too broad of power to just eliminate your "product" based on a potentially manufactured controversy. They could potentially remove a main source of income for people based on a subjective whim and nothing objective or concrete. I saw this argument brought up multiple times and not only from me.
This video made me happy. Amongst other reasons as to why is hearing that DDB will see focus and development, I think the site has tons of potential but has been stagnating for the last year.
This is a reminder to everyone who makes the choice to participate in this thread; you do so under the assumption that you will adhere to the site rules and guidelines. The moderation team has been observing a lot of toxic behaviour by multiple users who seem incapable of comprehending that respect is not optional. If you can't say something nicely, don't say it at all.
Anyone who fails to keep this in mind will be issued warnings, infractions, and mutes where appropriate. Posting in this forum is a privilege, not an entitlement, and one we reserve for those that can be civil and respectful.
Quote from Xippo> Seriously? You seriously think a game that has some of the most accepting groups of players and fans is some breeding ground for "white supremacy" and "problematic people"?
Seriously? You seriously think a game that has some of the most accepting groups of players and fans is some breeding ground for "white supremacy" and "problematic people"?
There is nothing mutually exclusive about both happening. [REDACTED]
As for my moving the goalposts: I've not. I said at the beginning that I don't trust Brink. That I think he is trying to lie his way out of the disaster Wizards made for itself. To try to restore some goodwill with publishers Wizards' follies pushed away.
I gave you reasons enough why I don't trust the company and why I'm not about to trust any spokesperson for it.
You seem to be of the mind that Wizards can't be trusted but someone doing their dirty work for them is a shining example of honestly.
You're entitled to that view. But only as much as I am to mine.
The burden of proof is on you. If your position is "WotC/Kyle Brink is lying", it's up to you to prove it.
My position is malleable. If Kyle Brink does an interview in the future where he clearly says something proven to be completely false, or shows any signs of being untrustworthy, then I will have more sympathy for your position of "everything anyone in the company says to the public is false". Your position seems far less open minded or based on facts.
Well, he is. Maybe 90% of what he's said on these interviews is true, but the last 10% is "I wasn't there when all these things happened, but I can tell you definitely that it was a communication problem that caused this whole mess." That's a lie and a proven/provable one. Kobold press "felt" like their "feedback" wasn't being solicited/listened to because they were told they have 1 week to sign a deal that screwed them over or WotC would yank the OGL anyway and give them even worse terms. If you ignore the bits about how he's been DMing for 20 years and how he's trying to be an amazing boss and focus on what needs to be focused on, he's still lying. I don't honestly care about the 90% of the interview where he's blowing bubbles up my butt. The parts where he's talking about the OGL, and the 'process' where he has ZERO first hand knowledge and says very little, the little pieces we are getting about it are not believable.
Maybe he's trying to be honest and just doesn't really know what happened, maybe he's actively pushing a party-line about how these 'negotiations' were being conducted. That I can't tell you. What I can tell you is that, at no point, ever, was kobold press solicited for their opinion on WotC tearing up 1.0a and capping their growth at 750k per year, and/or if they were, WotC definitely was not listing to their answer. This is, or should be rather obvious to everybody. There was internal pressure at the company to get it done and NOBODY who had a voice at the table was pushing back against it. Kyle was a part of that. I don't blame him. He's been there for 2 years and it has absolutely nothing to do with him or his job. He actively kept his team out of the room and "that was a mistake." 3pp also were NOT there. Now you might say "why would they be?" and the answer, again, is obvious. If KB is telling the truth and the whole thing was about disney and they looooove 3rd parties and did not want to alienate them, why wouldn't they be? The truth is that this was a runaway bull that wasn't going to be stopped by anything less than what happened, and the sooner kyle admits that, the sooner I'll believe anything else he says. I don't believe that there was a "secret" plan to take feedback and create an OGL that worked for 3pp, one that nobody knew about. If they were adding honey into 1.1 so the medicine would go down better, that's an entirely different claim. The 20% license fee on Kickstarter is also damning, since it's literally targeting 3pp who objectively are NOT Disney and Meta. 750k cap or not. So yea, he's lying.
> What if I don’t like these terms and don’t agree to the OGL: Commercial? That’s fine – it just means that you cannot earn income from any SRD-based D&D content you create on or after January 13, 2023, and you will need to either operate under the new OGL: NonCommercial or strike a custom direct deal with Wizards of the Coast for your project. But if you want to publish SRD-based content on or after January 13, 2023 and commercialize it, your only option is to agree to the OGL: Commercial.<
- WotC actively Soliciting feedback on 1.1 at the time the story broke
This approach is a vast improvement over a 6F clause. I am concerned however about their intent to act as "an amplifier", as ultimately what will be amplified is the content in question. I really don't like the idea of the game becoming a front line in the culture wars. I think the wiser approach is to just ignore provocative content rather than give it the spotlight it craves.
From the Satanic Panic of the 80s to today’s decision to move away from identified historical issues, D&D has been on the front line of culture wars for decades. It hasn’t been their fault - it just seems that folks, be it the moralists of the 80s or the racists of today have decided to make D&D (and Wizards generally—they’ve had both moralist and pro-racism problems with Magic over that game’s history) a target for outrage.
Wizards cannot really control their involvement in culture wars - it isn’t their fault that they cater to a demographic with a disproportionate number of problematic individuals. It should be noted that Wizards is also not alone in this—gaming generally has a white supremacy problem, and both video games and other tabletop games like Warhammer 40k (though Games Workshop brings some of that on themselves due to 40k’s lore) have similar issues with their player bases.
This isn’t a fight Wizards picked - they probably would love to just ignore it. But it is a fight they find themselves in, and they, quite reasonably, do not want their own product and their own speech being co-opted and used for hate.
Seriously? You seriously think a game that has some of the most accepting groups of players and fans is some breeding ground for "white supremacy" and "problematic people"?
I am not sure I would say breeding ground - and I didn’t - since I think it is more likely that D&D attracts those kinds of people rather than creates them.
D&D and other nerdy games do, as you note, facilitate an open environment where everyone can live the fantasy of living out who they wish they were; of living in a world without some of the problems our real world holds.
But that cuts both ways - it can serve as a sanctuary of tolerance where folks are living in an idealised world who accepts them… but it can also favour the intolerant - people who want to use escapism to flee from a world which increasingly decries their desire to repress others, using fantasy to return to an intolerant world they see as better for themselves.
Wizards has been very clear about this dichotomy existing in their game - it is tacitly acknowledged by Kyle in interviews like this. They all know there is a cancer of racism, homophobia, transphobia, incel culture, etc. within the nerdy community - as does anyone who has ever been on a nerd forum like Beyond or various subreddits, listened to open mike coms on a Call of Duty game, gone to a Warhammer 40k tournament and seen people dressed in Nazi paraphernalia (a problem so significant Games Workshop has openly admitted it to be a problem), etc.
Ultimately this duality in the game is one of the reasons Kyle noted they wanted to change the OGL - they know they both are a safe haven for vulnerable groups and a bastion for intolerant ones. Wizards wanted to make sure they had the tools to ensure the former group did not have to deal with the latter group in the former’s haven.
This approach is a vast improvement over a 6F clause. I am concerned however about their intent to act as "an amplifier", as ultimately what will be amplified is the content in question. I really don't like the idea of the game becoming a front line in the culture wars. I think the wiser approach is to just ignore provocative content rather than give it the spotlight it craves.
From the Satanic Panic of the 80s to today’s decision to move away from identified historical issues, D&D has been on the front line of culture wars for decades. It hasn’t been their fault - it just seems that folks, be it the moralists of the 80s or the racists of today have decided to make D&D (and Wizards generally—they’ve had both moralist and pro-racism problems with Magic over that game’s history) a target for outrage.
Wizards cannot really control their involvement in culture wars - it isn’t their fault that they cater to a demographic with a disproportionate number of problematic individuals. It should be noted that Wizards is also not alone in this—gaming generally has a white supremacy problem, and both video games and other tabletop games like Warhammer 40k (though Games Workshop brings some of that on themselves due to 40k’s lore) have similar issues with their player bases.
This isn’t a fight Wizards picked - they probably would love to just ignore it. But it is a fight they find themselves in, and they, quite reasonably, do not want their own product and their own speech being co-opted and used for hate.
Seriously? You seriously think a game that has some of the most accepting groups of players and fans is some breeding ground for "white supremacy" and "problematic people"?
2 seconds in the last thread where people were freaking out over the most banal & corporate statement from Kyle where he said he wanted WotC to have a more diverse workforce kinda kills the myth that D&D has the "most accepting groups of players".
2 seconds in the last thread where people were freaking out over the most banal & corporate statement from Kyle where he said he wanted WotC to have a more diverse workforce kinda kills the myth that D&D has the "most accepting groups of players".
TBH I was more encouraged by the fact that the people shouting them down outnumbered them, than discouraged by the fact that a rump end of players still exist
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)
2 seconds in the last thread where people were freaking out over the most banal & corporate statement from Kyle where he said he wanted WotC to have a more diverse workforce kinda kills the myth that D&D has the "most accepting groups of players".
TBH I was more encouraged by the fact that the people shouting them down outnumbered them, than discouraged by the fact that a rump end of players still exist
This approach is a vast improvement over a 6F clause. I am concerned however about their intent to act as "an amplifier", as ultimately what will be amplified is the content in question. I really don't like the idea of the game becoming a front line in the culture wars. I think the wiser approach is to just ignore provocative content rather than give it the spotlight it craves.
From the Satanic Panic of the 80s to today’s decision to move away from identified historical issues, D&D has been on the front line of culture wars for decades. It hasn’t been their fault - it just seems that folks, be it the moralists of the 80s or the racists of today have decided to make D&D (and Wizards generally—they’ve had both moralist and pro-racism problems with Magic over that game’s history) a target for outrage.
Wizards cannot really control their involvement in culture wars - it isn’t their fault that they cater to a demographic with a disproportionate number of problematic individuals. It should be noted that Wizards is also not alone in this—gaming generally has a white supremacy problem, and both video games and other tabletop games like Warhammer 40k (though Games Workshop brings some of that on themselves due to 40k’s lore) have similar issues with their player bases.
This isn’t a fight Wizards picked - they probably would love to just ignore it. But it is a fight they find themselves in, and they, quite reasonably, do not want their own product and their own speech being co-opted and used for hate.
Seriously? You seriously think a game that has some of the most accepting groups of players and fans is some breeding ground for "white supremacy" and "problematic people"?
2 seconds in the last thread where people were freaking out over the most banal & corporate statement from Kyle where he said he wanted WotC to have a more diverse workforce kinda kills the myth that D&D has the "most accepting groups of players".
Since my post explaining this was so conveniently deleted... I am not saying it doesn't exist. My point is that the squeaky wheels that are making arguments like that are much fewer in number than the majority that are very accepting people.
Since my post explaining this was so conveniently deleted... I am not saying it doesn't exist. My point is that the squeaky wheels that are making arguments like that are much fewer in number than the majority that are very accepting people.
Even if the problematic folks are just a loud splinter group as you believe them to be, that doesn't mean WotC doesn't still have a duty to publicly distance themselves and their game from that contingent, both via statement and via game design.
This approach is a vast improvement over a 6F clause. I am concerned however about their intent to act as "an amplifier", as ultimately what will be amplified is the content in question. I really don't like the idea of the game becoming a front line in the culture wars. I think the wiser approach is to just ignore provocative content rather than give it the spotlight it craves.
From the Satanic Panic of the 80s to today’s decision to move away from identified historical issues, D&D has been on the front line of culture wars for decades. It hasn’t been their fault - it just seems that folks, be it the moralists of the 80s or the racists of today have decided to make D&D (and Wizards generally—they’ve had both moralist and pro-racism problems with Magic over that game’s history) a target for outrage.
Wizards cannot really control their involvement in culture wars - it isn’t their fault that they cater to a demographic with a disproportionate number of problematic individuals. It should be noted that Wizards is also not alone in this—gaming generally has a white supremacy problem, and both video games and other tabletop games like Warhammer 40k (though Games Workshop brings some of that on themselves due to 40k’s lore) have similar issues with their player bases.
This isn’t a fight Wizards picked - they probably would love to just ignore it. But it is a fight they find themselves in, and they, quite reasonably, do not want their own product and their own speech being co-opted and used for hate.
Seriously? You seriously think a game that has some of the most accepting groups of players and fans is some breeding ground for "white supremacy" and "problematic people"?
I am not sure I would say breeding ground - and I didn’t - since I think it is more likely that D&D attracts those kinds of people rather than creates them.
D&D and other nerdy games do, as you note, facilitate an open environment where everyone can live the fantasy of living out who they wish they were; of living in a world without some of the problems our real world holds.
But that cuts both ways - it can serve as a sanctuary of tolerance where folks are living in an idealised world who accepts them… but it can also favour the intolerant - people who want to use escapism to flee from a world which increasingly decries their desire to repress others, using fantasy to return to an intolerant world they see as better for themselves.
Wizards has been very clear about this dichotomy existing in their game - it is tacitly acknowledged by Kyle in interviews like this. They all know there is a cancer of racism, homophobia, transphobia, incel culture, etc. within the nerdy community - as does anyone who has ever been on a nerd forum like Beyond or various subreddits, listened to open mike coms on a Call of Duty game, gone to a Warhammer 40k tournament and seen people dressed in Nazi paraphernalia (a problem so significant Games Workshop has openly admitted it to be a problem), etc.
Ultimately this duality in the game is one of the reasons Kyle noted they wanted to change the OGL - they know they both are a safe haven for vulnerable groups and a bastion for intolerant ones. Wizards wanted to make sure they had the tools to ensure the former group did not have to deal with the latter group in the former’s haven.
The question is though, where should the line be drawn for people who are making/publishing content with the OGL. If someone makes an adventure where racism, bigotry, etc is a main story beat with the intention that it should be stopped and a group runs it and does the opposite and WOTC/Hasbro decides well your book is "hate speech" even though in the context of it should be stopped is OBVIOUS in your adventure should they WOTC be able to potentially pull your license that you published on from you, losing any income you may have coming in from it? No. Let the community police itself. Let consumers decide on their own if they are going to support or not support that adventure. The answer isn't to leave that in the hands of one or two people that might be having a bad day because their dog crapped on the floor that morning, or whatever.
Since my post explaining this was so conveniently deleted... I am not saying it doesn't exist. My point is that the squeaky wheels that are making arguments like that are much fewer in number than the majority that are very accepting people.
Even if the problematic folks are just a loud splinter group as you believe them to be, that doesn't mean WotC doesn't still have a duty to publicly distance themselves and their game from that contingent, both via statement and via game design.
May I point you in the direction of my post just before this response here.
That said, since moderation wants to go all Fahrenheit 451 on me here, I'm just going to forego posting on the forums once again.
What I sincerely hope is that[...] That we get far more focus on this website.
I agree. I'm really excited for this, and it would be great to see Beyond could more attention and love.
That being said, this kinda seems too good to be true. I believe Kyle, and am willing to see what he and his company does with DDB. That being said, ever since Wizards bought the website, it hasn't gotten very many updates or attention. So, for now I'll be happy to see all the cool new things this website might get. Well this may be seen as skepticism (it is), I genuinely want to see Wizards' actions for this speak even louder than their words.
However, as I have stated before, this interview was awesome overall. It really made me feel like our concerns are being heard, and that Wizards of the Coast cares about being honest and transparent to the community.
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.
That being said, ever since Wizards bought the website, it hasn't gotten very many updates or attention.
There was very likely a re-org when the purchase happened, or ~everyone got different priorities. Those sorts of corporate actions always create delays. I would absolutely assume that all the devs and support and everyone else are still quite busy, and not just slacking.
The question is though, where should the line be drawn for people who are making/publishing content with the OGL. If someone makes an adventure where racism, bigotry, etc is a main story beat with the intention that it should be stopped and a group runs it and does the opposite and WOTC/Hasbro decides well your book is "hate speech" even though in the context of it should be stopped is OBVIOUS in your adventure should they WOTC be able to potentially pull your license that you published on from you, losing any income you may have coming in from it? No. Let the community police itself. Let consumers decide on their own if they are going to support or not support that adventure. The answer isn't to leave that in the hands of one or two people that might be having a bad day because their dog crapped on the floor that morning, or whatever.
Uh, this is exactly what they've done by releasing the SRD into Creative Commons. What on earth are you still complaining about?
If they find something abhorrent, the most they can do is pull their attribution, which does not keep anyone from continuing to make or sell whatever thing.
What I sincerely hope is that[...] That we get far more focus on this website.
I agree. I'm really excited for this, and it would be great to see Beyond could more attention and love.
That being said, this kinda seems too good to be true. I believe Kyle, and am willing to see what he and his company does with DDB. That being said, ever since Wizards bought the website, it hasn't gotten very many updates or attention. So, for now I'll be happy to see all the cool new things this website might get. Well this may be seen as skepticism (it is), I genuinely want to see Wizards' actions for this speak even louder than their words.
However, as I have stated before, this interview was awesome overall. It really made me feel like our concerns are being heard, and that Wizards of the Coast cares about being honest and transparent to the community.
Since they bought it, we finally got digital codes in physical product; that was one of the most requested items for DDB for years. We also got confirmation of the first-party VTT which was another massively requested item.
One of the big items I'm hoping returns is UA content.
I wasn't talking about artistry. I was talking about overall quality, and features like full color are part of quality. You may consider them a waste, but the publishing industry does not agree.
Ridiculous, I’ve never even been to Norway.
Seriously? You seriously think a game that has some of the most accepting groups of players and fans is some breeding ground for "white supremacy" and "problematic people"?
It was way too broad of a clause. It left all discretion to whomever was reviewing that claim that day. OR if you as the content creator irked the wrong person at WOTC/Hasbro (even in something completely unrelated) and they decided to go look for a problem with your created works (and lets be honest if someone wants to find an issue with something they can always find SOMETHING to make an issue), it gave them at WOTC way too broad of power to just eliminate your "product" based on a potentially manufactured controversy. They could potentially remove a main source of income for people based on a subjective whim and nothing objective or concrete. I saw this argument brought up multiple times and not only from me.
This video made me happy. Amongst other reasons as to why is hearing that DDB will see focus and development, I think the site has tons of potential but has been stagnating for the last year.
This is a reminder to everyone who makes the choice to participate in this thread; you do so under the assumption that you will adhere to the site rules and guidelines. The moderation team has been observing a lot of toxic behaviour by multiple users who seem incapable of comprehending that respect is not optional. If you can't say something nicely, don't say it at all.
Anyone who fails to keep this in mind will be issued warnings, infractions, and mutes where appropriate. Posting in this forum is a privilege, not an entitlement, and one we reserve for those that can be civil and respectful.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
There is nothing mutually exclusive about both happening. [REDACTED]
Well, he is. Maybe 90% of what he's said on these interviews is true, but the last 10% is "I wasn't there when all these things happened, but I can tell you definitely that it was a communication problem that caused this whole mess." That's a lie and a proven/provable one. Kobold press "felt" like their "feedback" wasn't being solicited/listened to because they were told they have 1 week to sign a deal that screwed them over or WotC would yank the OGL anyway and give them even worse terms. If you ignore the bits about how he's been DMing for 20 years and how he's trying to be an amazing boss and focus on what needs to be focused on, he's still lying. I don't honestly care about the 90% of the interview where he's blowing bubbles up my butt. The parts where he's talking about the OGL, and the 'process' where he has ZERO first hand knowledge and says very little, the little pieces we are getting about it are not believable.
Maybe he's trying to be honest and just doesn't really know what happened, maybe he's actively pushing a party-line about how these 'negotiations' were being conducted. That I can't tell you. What I can tell you is that, at no point, ever, was kobold press solicited for their opinion on WotC tearing up 1.0a and capping their growth at 750k per year, and/or if they were, WotC definitely was not listing to their answer. This is, or should be rather obvious to everybody. There was internal pressure at the company to get it done and NOBODY who had a voice at the table was pushing back against it. Kyle was a part of that. I don't blame him. He's been there for 2 years and it has absolutely nothing to do with him or his job. He actively kept his team out of the room and "that was a mistake." 3pp also were NOT there. Now you might say "why would they be?" and the answer, again, is obvious. If KB is telling the truth and the whole thing was about disney and they looooove 3rd parties and did not want to alienate them, why wouldn't they be? The truth is that this was a runaway bull that wasn't going to be stopped by anything less than what happened, and the sooner kyle admits that, the sooner I'll believe anything else he says. I don't believe that there was a "secret" plan to take feedback and create an OGL that worked for 3pp, one that nobody knew about. If they were adding honey into 1.1 so the medicine would go down better, that's an entirely different claim. The 20% license fee on Kickstarter is also damning, since it's literally targeting 3pp who objectively are NOT Disney and Meta. 750k cap or not. So yea, he's lying.
> What if I don’t like these terms and don’t agree to the OGL: Commercial? That’s fine – it just means that you cannot earn income from any SRD-based D&D content you create on or after January 13, 2023, and you will need to either operate under the new OGL: NonCommercial or strike a custom direct deal with Wizards of the Coast for your project. But if you want to publish SRD-based content on or after January 13, 2023 and commercialize it, your only option is to agree to the OGL: Commercial.<
- WotC actively Soliciting feedback on 1.1 at the time the story broke
I am not sure I would say breeding ground - and I didn’t - since I think it is more likely that D&D attracts those kinds of people rather than creates them.
D&D and other nerdy games do, as you note, facilitate an open environment where everyone can live the fantasy of living out who they wish they were; of living in a world without some of the problems our real world holds.
But that cuts both ways - it can serve as a sanctuary of tolerance where folks are living in an idealised world who accepts them… but it can also favour the intolerant - people who want to use escapism to flee from a world which increasingly decries their desire to repress others, using fantasy to return to an intolerant world they see as better for themselves.
Wizards has been very clear about this dichotomy existing in their game - it is tacitly acknowledged by Kyle in interviews like this. They all know there is a cancer of racism, homophobia, transphobia, incel culture, etc. within the nerdy community - as does anyone who has ever been on a nerd forum like Beyond or various subreddits, listened to open mike coms on a Call of Duty game, gone to a Warhammer 40k tournament and seen people dressed in Nazi paraphernalia (a problem so significant Games Workshop has openly admitted it to be a problem), etc.
Ultimately this duality in the game is one of the reasons Kyle noted they wanted to change the OGL - they know they both are a safe haven for vulnerable groups and a bastion for intolerant ones. Wizards wanted to make sure they had the tools to ensure the former group did not have to deal with the latter group in the former’s haven.
2 seconds in the last thread where people were freaking out over the most banal & corporate statement from Kyle where he said he wanted WotC to have a more diverse workforce kinda kills the myth that D&D has the "most accepting groups of players".
TBH I was more encouraged by the fact that the people shouting them down outnumbered them, than discouraged by the fact that a rump end of players still exist
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)
No human being is immune to the human condition.
Since my post explaining this was so conveniently deleted... I am not saying it doesn't exist. My point is that the squeaky wheels that are making arguments like that are much fewer in number than the majority that are very accepting people.
What I sincerely hope is that if this is going to be the defacto face of D&D going forward while sunsetting the main D&D website?
That we get far more focus on this website.
Even if the problematic folks are just a loud splinter group as you believe them to be, that doesn't mean WotC doesn't still have a duty to publicly distance themselves and their game from that contingent, both via statement and via game design.
The question is though, where should the line be drawn for people who are making/publishing content with the OGL. If someone makes an adventure where racism, bigotry, etc is a main story beat with the intention that it should be stopped and a group runs it and does the opposite and WOTC/Hasbro decides well your book is "hate speech" even though in the context of it should be stopped is OBVIOUS in your adventure should they WOTC be able to potentially pull your license that you published on from you, losing any income you may have coming in from it? No. Let the community police itself. Let consumers decide on their own if they are going to support or not support that adventure. The answer isn't to leave that in the hands of one or two people that might be having a bad day because their dog crapped on the floor that morning, or whatever.
May I point you in the direction of my post just before this response here.
That said, since moderation wants to go all Fahrenheit 451 on me here, I'm just going to forego posting on the forums once again.
I agree. I'm really excited for this, and it would be great to see Beyond could more attention and love.
That being said, this kinda seems too good to be true. I believe Kyle, and am willing to see what he and his company does with DDB. That being said, ever since Wizards bought the website, it hasn't gotten very many updates or attention. So, for now I'll be happy to see all the cool new things this website might get. Well this may be seen as skepticism (it is), I genuinely want to see Wizards' actions for this speak even louder than their words.
However, as I have stated before, this interview was awesome overall. It really made me feel like our concerns are being heard, and that Wizards of the Coast cares about being honest and transparent to the community.
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.There was very likely a re-org when the purchase happened, or ~everyone got different priorities. Those sorts of corporate actions always create delays. I would absolutely assume that all the devs and support and everyone else are still quite busy, and not just slacking.
Uh, this is exactly what they've done by releasing the SRD into Creative Commons. What on earth are you still complaining about?
If they find something abhorrent, the most they can do is pull their attribution, which does not keep anyone from continuing to make or sell whatever thing.
Since they bought it, we finally got digital codes in physical product; that was one of the most requested items for DDB for years. We also got confirmation of the first-party VTT which was another massively requested item.
One of the big items I'm hoping returns is UA content.