That has been every reasonable content creator's basic position since this started AFAIK.
No one has ever challenged Hasbro's ability to make a new liscence agreement for a new system. There was no outcry like this for the GSL back in '08. It was odious and no one wanted to use it leading to 4e's troubled run and Paizo's ascendency with Pathfinder; but there was no legal question or controversy as to whether they could actually do it legally, morally, or ethically.
Deauthorization and the retroactive enforcement of new terms on a 20 year old agreement is the only thing making this new contract at issue at all.
Separating OneD&D from 5e is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard on fixing this topic. Edition changes have historically been awful for consumers - even if you want to update to the new rules, you are now out hundreds or thousands of dollars in content you can’t use. And, once you arrive in the new edition, you are left with an edition that feels empty - there are next to no items, classes, monsters, species, etc. to choose from. For folks in the middle of campaigns, they’re put in the awkward position of trying to either keep an old edition or upgrade and figure out how to make the upgrade work (especially as they might have missing content that needs to be heavily homebrewed).
That is before you take into account that they almost certainly couldn’t pivot this late in development. They have their framework done, now it is time for tweaking that. Not to mention backwards compatibility means you can use existing Beyond systems as the basis, rather than making something entirely new.
And it doesn’t change the fact there are fatal flaws with how 1.0 is drafted that give Wizards good reason to want to move beyond it for all future contracts.
This isn’t a compromise - this is a set of unreasonable demands.
2. Do not deauthorise OGL 1.0a, leave that for the earlier versions of DnD that people have been publishing under it for years.
3. Release OneDnD under whatever licensing they like and have all third party OneDnD content published under this new agreement.
This would allow a number of problematic things. The most egregious one of them is that people would be able to be as hateful and belittling as they wanted in content for older editions.
I agree with Zebolt. And if WOTC can deauthorize OGL 1.0a, what's to stop them from deauthorizing any future OGL? Although OGL 1.2 claims to be "irrevocable", WOTC is using that word in a different way than is generally understood. As a result, WOTC could still deauthorize OGL 1.2 in the future.
Third Party Publishers depend on the OGL for guaranteed access to the language of the SRD. Without that, WOTC could sue them for copyright infringement. This puts small publishers in a very difficult position. Would you want to base your small business on a license agreement your competitor could take away on a whim? Better to stay away from D&D altogether.
Should we all be OK with the over-monopolistic strategy of killing Foundry by WotC? Because that's what this is all about, killing Foundry killing Its animations.
2. Do not deauthorise OGL 1.0a, leave that for the earlier versions of DnD that people have been publishing under it for years.
3. Release OneDnD under whatever licensing they like and have all third party OneDnD content published under this new agreement.
This would allow a number of problematic things. The most egregious one of them is that people would be able to be as hateful and belittling as they wanted in content for older editions.
But then, wouldn't this be a problem now? Is this a big problem now? Granted it seems to be a big problem in social media, but is it a problem in game publishing?
I would really like to see more respectful conversations. I think the health of the game means making D&D welcoming to every one. But is the OGL really the place to do that? I think if that is what WOTC really wants, they would be more effective leading by example and even up-lifting other publishers/competitors whom they really admire.
1. Separate OneDnD from 5e, make them no longer backwards compatible, this allows us to separate older 5e content from the newer OneDnD content.
This is a redline for me, and if WotC does it, I'd leave and never look back. After all the promises that the money I've spent on 5e will not be wasted, if WotC goes back on that...adiós. I know I'm not alone in that position, and I daresay that that the waves made by this OGL would be dwarfed by such a reversal. I'm not aware of many seriously advocating that the backwards compatibility be dropped...beyond those who are "OGL 1.0 at all costs", and to be honest, they're not in it for the game. Backwards compatibility is not on the table for me, and almost certainly a whole ton of other people too.
2. Do not deauthorise OGL 1.0a, leave that for the earlier versions of DnD that people have been publishing under it for years.
For old content sure. That's already been conceded by WotC. I'm not sure they're ever going to buy keeping it for new content, even for old versions. They've recently had a scare, and now they're checking all the doors to make sure no one can sneak in the house while they're out again.
3. Release OneDnD under whatever licensing they like and have all third party OneDnD content published under this new agreement.
I don't think 3rd parties (as a whole) will accept this deal. The newest edition is going to be where the money is at. Sure, you can make money selling for old editions...but the sweetest pickings are going to be with the most recent edition. That means that they'll want (what they view as) reasonable terms in the licence for it. It's not just about 1D&D, it's a bad precedent (for them) to set because it'll give them grief for the next edition too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
2. Do not deauthorise OGL 1.0a, leave that for the earlier versions of DnD that people have been publishing under it for years.
3. Release OneDnD under whatever licensing they like and have all third party OneDnD content published under this new agreement.
This would allow a number of problematic things. The most egregious one of them is that people would be able to be as hateful and belittling as they wanted in content for older editions.
But then, wouldn't this be a problem now? Is this a big problem now? Granted it seems to be a big problem in social media, but is it a problem in game publishing?
I would really like to see more respectful conversations. I think the health of the game means making D&D welcoming to every one. But is the OGL really the place to do that? I think if that is what WOTC really wants, they would be more effective leading by example and even up-lifting other publishers/competitors whom they really admire.
This is partly why I am confused. I know there are a few content makers in the OSR that are on the fringe who make edgelord troll stuff. Maybe they would have to go away, which, okj. I am just not seeing these bigotry problems in the4 gaming circles I am in, and I am a CIS white hetero male from GenX. I think I am supposed to be their prime target audiance or something.
But then, wouldn't this be a problem now? Is this a big problem now? Granted it seems to be a big problem in social media, but is it a problem in game publishing?
I would really like to see more respectful conversations. I think the health of the game means making D&D welcoming to every one. But is the OGL really the place to do that? I think if that is what WOTC really wants, they would be more effective leading by example and even up-lifting other publishers/competitors whom they really admire.
Wizards of the Coast is currently locked in a lawsuit over racist uses of their trademarks, specifically over Ernest Gygax's version of Star Frontiers. Though this isn't an exploitation of Wizards' Open Game License policy, it still goes to show how problematic it is when someone makes harmful content, and it shows how important it is for Wizards to prevent this in the future.
Also Wizards of the Coast has effectively and widely declared that their license contains an easily abused loophole. If people didn't notice and exploit it before, they'll certainly be using it now.
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.
I have had an idea for a while now that may allow WotC and Hasbro to have whatever OGL they like going forward, but will keep the rest of us happy.
Here goes.
1. Separate OneDnD from 5e, make them no longer backwards compatible, this allows us to separate older 5e content from the newer OneDnD content.
2. Do not deauthorise OGL 1.0a, leave that for the earlier versions of DnD that people have been publishing under it for years.
3. Release OneDnD under whatever licensing they like and have all third party OneDnD content published under this new agreement.
Thoughts?
This is literally the only acceptable way they ever could have implimented a new OGL with these overreaching stipulations and expectations, like how they somehow expect to be able to control whether or not people use animations in their digital tabletop space. Absolutely ridiculous.
I personally don't think many people have a hard time telling the difference between a video game and a tabletop game; does it operate on it's own, no Dungeon Master required? that's a video game. Does it need a Dungeon Master to progress the story? That's a tabletop game. Not very difficult if you ask me, this whole smokescreen of changing the OGL and deauthorizing it when it's been working just fine for them and the community for 20 years is clearly just a smokescreen so that they can force players to adapt to their new OGL that grants them more rights and permissions than they had before - and I'm sure royalties are down the line if they manage to get their way, even if they're off the table for now. Once they establish that making new OGL's is a thing that is done they're going to just bide their time and do it in a few months or years and insist it's all super normal, nothing to see here.
If they were coming out with a new version of D&D, they would have EVERY RIGHT to stipulate a new OGL for that version of the game - the problem is that they can't take 5e out of our hands in order to do that. But they want to, because otherwise they don't think we'll play the new game - and probably rightfully so. The only way to guarantee their new game's success is to ensure control over 5e's content creators and have ways to smother them out if need be. After all, the current operating OGL allows them to protect against harmful content already, there's no way someone can currently make this fictitious harmful content that they say is such a danger to us - so why the change?
... After all, the current operating OGL allows them to protect against harmful content already, there's no way someone can currently make this fictitious harmful content that they say is such a danger to us - so why the change?
The change is because ytou're dead wrong and OGL 1.0a makes no provisions to allow Wizards to take action against bad actors. That's why you all are clinging to it so hard, remember? It doesn't let Wizards do ****-all to anyone for any reason, even if both Wizards and all the other third-party publishers whose business would be suffering from this bad actor tarnishing the entire IP are all desperate to stop it. If Ernie G had published his nonsense under the OGL, Wizards would not have been able to dispute him and you all would've bought that shit so fast the Internet would get friction burns.
**
As for your compromise, Terris? Yes, that's exactly what all the rioters are looking for - publish One D&D under whatever Wizards feels like and leave 5e alone. This is because these are all also the same people actively attempting to sabotage One D&D and who are personally invested in seeing the One D&D initiative fall and fail. Most of them, frankly, are the same people who've also loudly and publicly sworn they would never buy another D&D book ever again because they can just play pen & paper with their hardback PHB from 2014, they don't need nothin' else and they're proud of it. So yes, they would all be perfectly fine with Wizards publishing One under 1.2 because they have no intention of supporting the hobby any further anyways and they don't give a shit what the new books they don't care about buying are licensed under.
After all, the current operating OGL allows them to protect against harmful content already, there's no way someone can currently make this fictitious harmful content that they say is such a danger to us - so why the change?
Um... this myth has zero relation to reality. If the content is illegal for other reasons, sure, the OGL won't stop a suit, but most problematic content is merely repulsive, rather than actively illegal (note that Star Frontiers was never under the OGL to start with).
But then, wouldn't this be a problem now? Is this a big problem now? Granted it seems to be a big problem in social media, but is it a problem in game publishing?
I would really like to see more respectful conversations. I think the health of the game means making D&D welcoming to every one. But is the OGL really the place to do that? I think if that is what WOTC really wants, they would be more effective leading by example and even up-lifting other publishers/competitors whom they really admire.
Wizards of the Coast is currently locked in a lawsuit over racist uses of their trademarks, specifically over Ernest Gygax's version of Star Frontiers. Though this isn't an exploitation of Wizards' Open Game License policy, it still goes to show how problematic it is when someone makes harmful content, and it shows how important it is for Wizards to prevent this in the future.
Also Wizards of the Coast has effectively and widely declared that their license contains an easily abused loophole. If people didn't notice and exploit it before, they'll certainly be using it now.
And even without the obviously hateful example of NuTSR, they ran into trouble in the past too via Book of Erotic Fantasy, which WAS published under OGL 1.0a. The impact of that was relatively minimal because D&D had a much lower profile back then than it does now, and D&D communities were largely contained to tabletop gaming messageboards and other isolated pockets. If OGL 1.0a were used today to make something both heinous and D&D compatible, much less multiple somethings, they'd have to waste time putting out fires that could go into improving the game.
For all those angry people who are allowed to be so when other are not allowed to for some reason remember only one side of this dust up has acted in bad faith and lied about and then had to apologize.
I had a fairly stupid communications signals officer in one combat brigade I was in.
I was working in an Intelligence section that worked right next to his section and he used to always blame everything he did wrong on "sunspots".
If he issued the wrong frequencies the excuse he gave was sunspots. If he forgot to load the encryption devices, same deal.
Finally the Commander had enough and when he fired him he told him he was tired of all the sunspots that followed the unit around.
To the excuse about HASBRO and WOTC doing all this because of someone small company doing something stupid and WOTC needs to cancel the current OGL I tell you it sounds an awful lot like that dumb communications officer...
For all those angry people who are allowed to be so when other are not allowed to for some reason remember only one side of this dust up has acted in bad faith and lied about and then had to apologize.
I had a fairly stupid communications signals officer in one combat brigade I was in.
I was working in an Intelligence section that worked right next to his section and he used to always blame everything he did wrong on "sunspots".
If he issued the wrong frequencies the excuse he gave was sunspots. If he forgot to load the encryption devices, same deal.
Finally the Commander had enough and when he fired him he told him he was tired of all the sunspots that followed the unit around.
To the excuse about HASBRO and WOTC doing all this because of someone small company doing something stupid and WOTC needs to cancel the current OGL I tell you it sounds an awful lot like that dumb communications officer...
It makes you look foolish.
That analogy...is not a good look for you. No one is blaming Kobold Press for WotC releasing that Hadozee nonsense. No one is blaming VTTFoundry for OGL 1.2. No one is saying that WotC screwed up and is blaming it on others other than those who just want to sling mud.
A better analogy: Someone managed to walk in to WotC's house and left graffiti on the wall. Now, WotC is installing locks on all the doors and windows, and want to control who enters their house.
How they're going about it may not be how we'd want it, and they certainly have things I want changed. Calling them names and pretending they're doing things they're not is not helping.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
But then, wouldn't this be a problem now? Is this a big problem now? Granted it seems to be a big problem in social media, but is it a problem in game publishing?
I would really like to see more respectful conversations. I think the health of the game means making D&D welcoming to every one. But is the OGL really the place to do that? I think if that is what WOTC really wants, they would be more effective leading by example and even up-lifting other publishers/competitors whom they really admire.
Wizards of the Coast is currently locked in a lawsuit over racist uses of their trademarks, specifically over Ernest Gygax's version of Star Frontiers. Though this isn't an exploitation of Wizards' Open Game License policy, it still goes to show how problematic it is when someone makes harmful content, and it shows how important it is for Wizards to prevent this in the future.
Also Wizards of the Coast has effectively and widely declared that their license contains an easily abused loophole. If people didn't notice and exploit it before, they'll certainly be using it now.
Thank you for bringing this case to my attention. I wasn't aware of it. I think I better understand where WOTC is coming from.
But then, wouldn't this be a problem now? Is this a big problem now? Granted it seems to be a big problem in social media, but is it a problem in game publishing?
I would really like to see more respectful conversations. I think the health of the game means making D&D welcoming to every one. But is the OGL really the place to do that? I think if that is what WOTC really wants, they would be more effective leading by example and even up-lifting other publishers/competitors whom they really admire.
Wizards of the Coast is currently locked in a lawsuit over racist uses of their trademarks, specifically over Ernest Gygax's version of Star Frontiers. Though this isn't an exploitation of Wizards' Open Game License policy, it still goes to show how problematic it is when someone makes harmful content, and it shows how important it is for Wizards to prevent this in the future.
Also Wizards of the Coast has effectively and widely declared that their license contains an easily abused loophole. If people didn't notice and exploit it before, they'll certainly be using it now.
It's been months since I heard about this controversy. However, and perhaps I'm wrong, wasn't the initial reason for the lawsuit for using the Name "Star Frontiers" which is owned by WoTC after the purchase of TSR?
I also have to say that I'm not surprised, in fact I'm sure, that Ernest Gygax has filled the game with racist, homophobic, and other hateful content.
But then, wouldn't this be a problem now? Is this a big problem now? Granted it seems to be a big problem in social media, but is it a problem in game publishing?
I would really like to see more respectful conversations. I think the health of the game means making D&D welcoming to every one. But is the OGL really the place to do that? I think if that is what WOTC really wants, they would be more effective leading by example and even up-lifting other publishers/competitors whom they really admire.
Wizards of the Coast is currently locked in a lawsuit over racist uses of their trademarks, specifically over Ernest Gygax's version of Star Frontiers. Though this isn't an exploitation of Wizards' Open Game License policy, it still goes to show how problematic it is when someone makes harmful content, and it shows how important it is for Wizards to prevent this in the future.
Also Wizards of the Coast has effectively and widely declared that their license contains an easily abused loophole. If people didn't notice and exploit it before, they'll certainly be using it now.
It's been months since I heard about this controversy. However, and perhaps I'm wrong, wasn't the initial reason for the lawsuit for using the Name "Star Frontiers" which is owned by WoTC after the purchase of TSR?
I also have to say that I'm not surprised, in fact I'm sure, that Ernest Gygax has filled the game with racist, homophobic, and other hateful content.
You are correct--the lawsuit came about because Gygax used the name Star Frontiers and the label TSR, both of which are trademarks owned by Wizards which Wizards currently uses in commerce (they sell old Star Frontiers PDFs and various TSR-made properties with the TSR brand through a licensing deal with a third-party to sell old TTRPG content). Based on the pleadings, Wizards has a really, really strong case, both that infringement happened and that there would be a tarnishing of the brand identity based on the absolutely horrific level of racism fake-TSR and put in their fake Star Frontiers game.
But, from the attorney perspective, Wizards got really, really lucky and this was a legal wake-up call. They dodged a bullet with this case--Gygax flagrantly stole Wizards' intellectual property. Had he been smarter and really wanted to accomplish his goal of "making a TTRPG that looked like the kind of game he and his father wanted to make", he did not have to steal anything from Wizards. He could have walked right up to OGL 1.0, taken all the content in there that was made by Wizards and freely given to third parties to use, and then made his own racist rulebook, completely compatible with 5e, containing exact words from 5e, and, in his mind, putting the racism back in D&D that he has said he believes belongs in the game.
And, so long as he comported with the rules of OGL 1.0, there would be nothing Wizards could do to stop it--nothing they could to to stop Gygax from publishing a book where, say, someone casts "Cloudkill" (a spell name that is Wizards' intellectual property, but is licensed under OGL 1.0) to commit genocide. Or where a Sphere of Annihilation is used for some nefarious purpose. Or use any other name that is Wizards' IP for purposes of hate. Under 1.0, as long as the rules are followed, Gygax could have done any number of truly awful things, all while using Wizards' intellectual property to do so.
Wizards got lucky this time--Gygax went for blatant theft over using the invitation to borrow property without restriction. But this whole experienced exposed there was a vulnerability in their systems that allowed others to use Wizards' property in ways Wizards did not want--and a vulnerability, once exposed, is much more likely to be exploited.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have had an idea for a while now that may allow WotC and Hasbro to have whatever OGL they like going forward, but will keep the rest of us happy.
Here goes.
1. Separate OneDnD from 5e, make them no longer backwards compatible, this allows us to separate older 5e content from the newer OneDnD content.
2. Do not deauthorise OGL 1.0a, leave that for the earlier versions of DnD that people have been publishing under it for years.
3. Release OneDnD under whatever licensing they like and have all third party OneDnD content published under this new agreement.
Thoughts?
That has been every reasonable content creator's basic position since this started AFAIK.
No one has ever challenged Hasbro's ability to make a new liscence agreement for a new system. There was no outcry like this for the GSL back in '08. It was odious and no one wanted to use it leading to 4e's troubled run and Paizo's ascendency with Pathfinder; but there was no legal question or controversy as to whether they could actually do it legally, morally, or ethically.
Deauthorization and the retroactive enforcement of new terms on a 20 year old agreement is the only thing making this new contract at issue at all.
Separating OneD&D from 5e is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard on fixing this topic. Edition changes have historically been awful for consumers - even if you want to update to the new rules, you are now out hundreds or thousands of dollars in content you can’t use. And, once you arrive in the new edition, you are left with an edition that feels empty - there are next to no items, classes, monsters, species, etc. to choose from. For folks in the middle of campaigns, they’re put in the awkward position of trying to either keep an old edition or upgrade and figure out how to make the upgrade work (especially as they might have missing content that needs to be heavily homebrewed).
That is before you take into account that they almost certainly couldn’t pivot this late in development. They have their framework done, now it is time for tweaking that. Not to mention backwards compatibility means you can use existing Beyond systems as the basis, rather than making something entirely new.
And it doesn’t change the fact there are fatal flaws with how 1.0 is drafted that give Wizards good reason to want to move beyond it for all future contracts.
This isn’t a compromise - this is a set of unreasonable demands.
Almost nobody wants this.
This would allow a number of problematic things. The most egregious one of them is that people would be able to be as hateful and belittling as they wanted in content for older editions.
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.I agree with Zebolt. And if WOTC can deauthorize OGL 1.0a, what's to stop them from deauthorizing any future OGL? Although OGL 1.2 claims to be "irrevocable", WOTC is using that word in a different way than is generally understood. As a result, WOTC could still deauthorize OGL 1.2 in the future.
Third Party Publishers depend on the OGL for guaranteed access to the language of the SRD. Without that, WOTC could sue them for copyright infringement. This puts small publishers in a very difficult position. Would you want to base your small business on a license agreement your competitor could take away on a whim? Better to stay away from D&D altogether.
Should we all be OK with the over-monopolistic strategy of killing Foundry by WotC? Because that's what this is all about, killing Foundry killing Its animations.
But then, wouldn't this be a problem now? Is this a big problem now? Granted it seems to be a big problem in social media, but is it a problem in game publishing?
I would really like to see more respectful conversations. I think the health of the game means making D&D welcoming to every one. But is the OGL really the place to do that? I think if that is what WOTC really wants, they would be more effective leading by example and even up-lifting other publishers/competitors whom they really admire.
This is a redline for me, and if WotC does it, I'd leave and never look back. After all the promises that the money I've spent on 5e will not be wasted, if WotC goes back on that...adiós. I know I'm not alone in that position, and I daresay that that the waves made by this OGL would be dwarfed by such a reversal. I'm not aware of many seriously advocating that the backwards compatibility be dropped...beyond those who are "OGL 1.0 at all costs", and to be honest, they're not in it for the game. Backwards compatibility is not on the table for me, and almost certainly a whole ton of other people too.
For old content sure. That's already been conceded by WotC. I'm not sure they're ever going to buy keeping it for new content, even for old versions. They've recently had a scare, and now they're checking all the doors to make sure no one can sneak in the house while they're out again.
I don't think 3rd parties (as a whole) will accept this deal. The newest edition is going to be where the money is at. Sure, you can make money selling for old editions...but the sweetest pickings are going to be with the most recent edition. That means that they'll want (what they view as) reasonable terms in the licence for it. It's not just about 1D&D, it's a bad precedent (for them) to set because it'll give them grief for the next edition too.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
This is partly why I am confused. I know there are a few content makers in the OSR that are on the fringe who make edgelord troll stuff. Maybe they would have to go away, which, okj. I am just not seeing these bigotry problems in the4 gaming circles I am in, and I am a CIS white hetero male from GenX. I think I am supposed to be their prime target audiance or something.
Wizards of the Coast is currently locked in a lawsuit over racist uses of their trademarks, specifically over Ernest Gygax's version of Star Frontiers. Though this isn't an exploitation of Wizards' Open Game License policy, it still goes to show how problematic it is when someone makes harmful content, and it shows how important it is for Wizards to prevent this in the future.
Also Wizards of the Coast has effectively and widely declared that their license contains an easily abused loophole. If people didn't notice and exploit it before, they'll certainly be using it now.
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.This is literally the only acceptable way they ever could have implimented a new OGL with these overreaching stipulations and expectations, like how they somehow expect to be able to control whether or not people use animations in their digital tabletop space. Absolutely ridiculous.
I personally don't think many people have a hard time telling the difference between a video game and a tabletop game; does it operate on it's own, no Dungeon Master required? that's a video game. Does it need a Dungeon Master to progress the story? That's a tabletop game. Not very difficult if you ask me, this whole smokescreen of changing the OGL and deauthorizing it when it's been working just fine for them and the community for 20 years is clearly just a smokescreen so that they can force players to adapt to their new OGL that grants them more rights and permissions than they had before - and I'm sure royalties are down the line if they manage to get their way, even if they're off the table for now. Once they establish that making new OGL's is a thing that is done they're going to just bide their time and do it in a few months or years and insist it's all super normal, nothing to see here.
If they were coming out with a new version of D&D, they would have EVERY RIGHT to stipulate a new OGL for that version of the game - the problem is that they can't take 5e out of our hands in order to do that. But they want to, because otherwise they don't think we'll play the new game - and probably rightfully so. The only way to guarantee their new game's success is to ensure control over 5e's content creators and have ways to smother them out if need be. After all, the current operating OGL allows them to protect against harmful content already, there's no way someone can currently make this fictitious harmful content that they say is such a danger to us - so why the change?
The change is because ytou're dead wrong and OGL 1.0a makes no provisions to allow Wizards to take action against bad actors. That's why you all are clinging to it so hard, remember? It doesn't let Wizards do ****-all to anyone for any reason, even if both Wizards and all the other third-party publishers whose business would be suffering from this bad actor tarnishing the entire IP are all desperate to stop it. If Ernie G had published his nonsense under the OGL, Wizards would not have been able to dispute him and you all would've bought that shit so fast the Internet would get friction burns.
**
As for your compromise, Terris? Yes, that's exactly what all the rioters are looking for - publish One D&D under whatever Wizards feels like and leave 5e alone. This is because these are all also the same people actively attempting to sabotage One D&D and who are personally invested in seeing the One D&D initiative fall and fail. Most of them, frankly, are the same people who've also loudly and publicly sworn they would never buy another D&D book ever again because they can just play pen & paper with their hardback PHB from 2014, they don't need nothin' else and they're proud of it. So yes, they would all be perfectly fine with Wizards publishing One under 1.2 because they have no intention of supporting the hobby any further anyways and they don't give a shit what the new books they don't care about buying are licensed under.
Please do not contact or message me.
Um... this myth has zero relation to reality. If the content is illegal for other reasons, sure, the OGL won't stop a suit, but most problematic content is merely repulsive, rather than actively illegal (note that Star Frontiers was never under the OGL to start with).
And even without the obviously hateful example of NuTSR, they ran into trouble in the past too via Book of Erotic Fantasy, which WAS published under OGL 1.0a. The impact of that was relatively minimal because D&D had a much lower profile back then than it does now, and D&D communities were largely contained to tabletop gaming messageboards and other isolated pockets. If OGL 1.0a were used today to make something both heinous and D&D compatible, much less multiple somethings, they'd have to waste time putting out fires that could go into improving the game.
For all those angry people who are allowed to be so when other are not allowed to for some reason remember only one side of this dust up has acted in bad faith and lied about and then had to apologize.
I had a fairly stupid communications signals officer in one combat brigade I was in.
I was working in an Intelligence section that worked right next to his section and he used to always blame everything he did wrong on "sunspots".
If he issued the wrong frequencies the excuse he gave was sunspots. If he forgot to load the encryption devices, same deal.
Finally the Commander had enough and when he fired him he told him he was tired of all the sunspots that followed the unit around.
To the excuse about HASBRO and WOTC doing all this because of someone small company doing something stupid and WOTC needs to cancel the current OGL I tell you it sounds an awful lot like that dumb communications officer...
It makes you look foolish.
That analogy...is not a good look for you. No one is blaming Kobold Press for WotC releasing that Hadozee nonsense. No one is blaming VTTFoundry for OGL 1.2. No one is saying that WotC screwed up and is blaming it on others other than those who just want to sling mud.
A better analogy: Someone managed to walk in to WotC's house and left graffiti on the wall. Now, WotC is installing locks on all the doors and windows, and want to control who enters their house.
How they're going about it may not be how we'd want it, and they certainly have things I want changed. Calling them names and pretending they're doing things they're not is not helping.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Thank you for bringing this case to my attention. I wasn't aware of it. I think I better understand where WOTC is coming from.
It's been months since I heard about this controversy. However, and perhaps I'm wrong, wasn't the initial reason for the lawsuit for using the Name "Star Frontiers" which is owned by WoTC after the purchase of TSR?
I also have to say that I'm not surprised, in fact I'm sure, that Ernest Gygax has filled the game with racist, homophobic, and other hateful content.
You are correct--the lawsuit came about because Gygax used the name Star Frontiers and the label TSR, both of which are trademarks owned by Wizards which Wizards currently uses in commerce (they sell old Star Frontiers PDFs and various TSR-made properties with the TSR brand through a licensing deal with a third-party to sell old TTRPG content). Based on the pleadings, Wizards has a really, really strong case, both that infringement happened and that there would be a tarnishing of the brand identity based on the absolutely horrific level of racism fake-TSR and put in their fake Star Frontiers game.
But, from the attorney perspective, Wizards got really, really lucky and this was a legal wake-up call. They dodged a bullet with this case--Gygax flagrantly stole Wizards' intellectual property. Had he been smarter and really wanted to accomplish his goal of "making a TTRPG that looked like the kind of game he and his father wanted to make", he did not have to steal anything from Wizards. He could have walked right up to OGL 1.0, taken all the content in there that was made by Wizards and freely given to third parties to use, and then made his own racist rulebook, completely compatible with 5e, containing exact words from 5e, and, in his mind, putting the racism back in D&D that he has said he believes belongs in the game.
And, so long as he comported with the rules of OGL 1.0, there would be nothing Wizards could do to stop it--nothing they could to to stop Gygax from publishing a book where, say, someone casts "Cloudkill" (a spell name that is Wizards' intellectual property, but is licensed under OGL 1.0) to commit genocide. Or where a Sphere of Annihilation is used for some nefarious purpose. Or use any other name that is Wizards' IP for purposes of hate. Under 1.0, as long as the rules are followed, Gygax could have done any number of truly awful things, all while using Wizards' intellectual property to do so.
Wizards got lucky this time--Gygax went for blatant theft over using the invitation to borrow property without restriction. But this whole experienced exposed there was a vulnerability in their systems that allowed others to use Wizards' property in ways Wizards did not want--and a vulnerability, once exposed, is much more likely to be exploited.