New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 50 123456789101126 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 1473
  1. - Top - End - #1
    The Big Footprint Administrator
     
    Forum Staff's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The Playground

    Post Official OGL Discussion Thread

    As many of you are aware, a document from Wizards of the Coast (WotC) regarding the future of the Open Game License (OGL) has met with a strong reaction from the gaming community. Independent of the One D&D discussion, which has been and continues to be a valid topic, this proposed change has sparked passionate debate.

    The discussion surrounding the OGL has proven to be complicated, with previous comments already dipping past what is allowed on these boards. The Playground is (at least for some) an important place to have gaming conversations, and whether this issue is a fundamental one or a fleeting one, it does seem important to posters here. Like any thread, however, this is bound by the Forum Rules. The Forum Staff have discussed this at length, and we would like to point out the following topics should be avoided:

    1) Legal Advice and Opinion (even speculative and theoretical)
    2) Real World Politics including discussion of government actions, laws, and regulations, such as copyright and other intellectual property rights
    3) Insulting Hasbro/WotC or its employees, some of whom do post or lurk here
    4) Insulting others based on their opinions on this issue

    Overall, we expect (and will require) a high level of civility in this thread. Expect it to be moderated tightly in hopes that it can be kept in-bounds and peaceful.

    It may be that some aspects of this issue simply cannot be discussed here. While we acknowledge that that is probably limiting and even frustrating, the limits on topics and manner of discussion here are fundamental to the forum. A forum to discuss religious reactions to gaming or legal issues faced by content creators would be valuable, but we have broadly prohibited those topics here. There are many other outlets for exploring the legal issues involved, expressing one's rage, insulting or attacking others, and other reactions that aren't permitted here.

    We hope this thread can be a space that allows for a meaningful discussion of the ramifications of this new landscape while also following our Forum Rules.
    The above words represent the consensus of the entire Giant in the Playground staff, including the moderators, the webmaster, and Rich Burlew.

    (The PM box for this account is not regularly monitored; please direct any PMs to the forum staff to Roland St. Jude, the forum guru. Do send moderator applications to this account, though, as directed in the announcement thread. Thank you.)

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Thanks to the forum staff for creating this thread. There has been a new statement put out by WoTC within the hour, here:
    https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428...n-game-license

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Snowbluff's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Atranen View Post
    Thanks to the forum staff for creating this thread. There has been a new statement put out by WoTC within the hour, here:
    https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428...n-game-license
    Pretty exciting that there's something to work off of here.

    To be clear, I do not believe the 1.0a will remain as is. Looking what has been said about it and what WotC wants to accomplish with it (they would have no way to enforce a morality clause with older extant and functioning licenses existing), there does need to be an update.

    Royalties and license back were my main burning issues, and it sounded like both were getting dropped, according to the last statement. License back seemed like a weird inclusion, but apparently is simply not unusual for a platform like DM's Guild or Youtube. It is a bit strange to apply it to a game system rather than a specific platform, however.
    Avatar of Rudisplork Avatar of PC-dom and Slayer of the Internet. Extended sig
    GitP Regulars as: Vestiges Spells Weapons Races Deities Feats Soulmelds/Veils
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowbluff View Post
    All gaming systems should be terribly flawed and exploitable if you want everyone to be happy with them. This allows for a wide variety of power levels for games for different levels of players.
    I dub this the Snowbluff Axiom.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Titan in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Atranen View Post
    Thanks to the forum staff for creating this thread. There has been a new statement put out by WoTC within the hour, here:
    https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428...n-game-license
    Thanks to the forum staff! This is a topic I feel a need to talk about and few places that I can.


    This new statement has 2 major issues for me:
    1) They continue to push for deauthorizing the 1.0a OGL. That is a dealbreaker for me. I have skipped editions before based on taste, but deleting an open license that was intended, presented, and trusted to be perpetual and irrevocable is not acceptable.
    2) They lied in this statement and even I noticed the lie. They are still pretending 1.1 was a "draft" despite it being sent out as part of contracts (allegedly). If I catch you lying to me, I won't trust you. Stop lying.


    If they want a new OGL, then let the 1.0a OGL continue to exist and have the new OGL grant access to more. Maybe all 5.5+ SRDs use the 1.1 OGL. That is fine.
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2023-01-18 at 02:04 PM.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Well, the good news is that we have an actual apology, and a process to move forward on. Looking forward to a constructive dialogue.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowbluff View Post
    Pretty exciting that there's something to work off of here.

    To be clear, I do not believe the 1.0a will remain as is. Looking what has been said about it and what WotC wants to accomplish with it (they would have no way to enforce a morality clause with older extant and functioning licenses existing), there does need to be an update.

    Royalties and license back were my main burning issues, and it sounded like both were getting dropped, according to the last statement. License back seemed like a weird inclusion, but apparently is simply not unusual for a platform like DM's Guild or Youtube. It is a bit strange to apply it to a game system rather than a specific platform, however.
    It's a much better statement than they put out previously. It remains to be seen what exactly the new version looks like, and I'll withhold final judgement until I see that. But if they manage to propose something that gives them what they want without adversely affecting third parties, I could see myself continuing to buy from the company.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
    If they want a new OGL, then let the 1.0a OGL continue to exist and have the new OGL grant access to more. Maybe all 5.5+ SRDs use the 1.1 OGL. That is fine.
    This is a simple and easy way for them to give me what I want.
    Last edited by Atranen; 2023-01-18 at 02:06 PM.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Titan in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    I am worried the survey will require a D&D beyond account and they will use the upswing in accounts (due to people deleting their accounts previously) to ignore feedback given in the survey.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Brookshw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Atranen View Post
    Thanks to the forum staff for creating this thread. There has been a new statement put out by WoTC within the hour, here:
    https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428...n-game-license
    Thanks for sharing. A good start I think. I'll continue to wait for at least the next draft before formulating an opinion. Kinda irked they seem to want to do the public comments through DDB, but, whatever, can't say I'm surprised.
    Quote Originally Posted by jedipotter View Post
    Logic just does not fit in with the real world. And only the guilty throw fallacy's around.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vendin, probably
    As always, the planes prove to be awesomer than I expected.
    Avatar courtesy of Linklele

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Thanks very much to the mods for creating this space!!

    The wording of the statement makes it clear to me they plan to move forward with deauthorizing 1.0a. I'm not against this (depending on how they do it and what that ultimately means for existing works, anyway) - rather my primary concern is the provisions they will put into 2.0, especially the means for keeping it updated going forward. 30 days of notice for unilateral modification just did not cut it.

    They addressed my remaining two "bright red lines" from the prior leak - the royalty, and the licenseback/ownership clause - so the modification clause is the only item of concern I personally have left.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brookshw View Post
    Thanks for sharing. A good start I think. I'll continue to wait for at least the next draft before formulating an opinion. Kinda irked they seem to want to do the public comments through DDB, but, whatever, can't say I'm surprised.
    It's a bit shrewd when you think about it. They will almost certainly get some reactivations this way, maybe even a resub or two. If nothing else, it will provide the most staunch protesting creator voices some covering fire - "I reactivated my account so I can make all our voices heard! I did it for YOU!"

    And, as I said during the UA survey topics, it will likely also protect their feedback process from being influenced by botnets, sockpuppets and the like. That's going to be 100x more imperative here, since this survey will relate directly to their business rather than just the game.
    Last edited by Psyren; 2023-01-18 at 02:15 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    Thanks very much to the mods for creating this space!!

    The wording of the statement makes it clear to me they plan to move forward with deauthorizing 1.0a. I'm not against this (depending on how they do it and what that ultimately means for existing works, anyway) - rather my primary concern is the provisions they will put into 2.0, especially the means for keeping it updated going forward. 30 days of notice for unilateral modification just did not cut it.

    They addressed my remaining two "bright red lines" from the prior leak - the royalty, and the licenseback/ownership clause - so the modification clause is the only item of concern I personally have left.
    I tend to agree. Much as I don't want them to deauth 1.0a, it certainly seems they're going in that direction.

    The royalty and licenseback clauses were my other two big issues as well. But until we see the actual [against-the-rules] terminology of the official non-"draft" license, I'm not holding my breath.

    It's a bit shrewd when you think about it. They will almost certainly get some reactivations this way, maybe even a resub or two. If nothing else, it will provide the most staunch protesting creator voices some covering fire - "I reactivated my account so I can make all our voices heard! I did it for YOU!"

    And, as I said during the UA survey topics, it will likely also protect their feedback process from being influenced by botnets, sockpuppets and the like. That's going to be 100x more imperative here, since this survey will relate directly to their business rather than just the game.
    Also true. I was in the process of deleting my DDB account when this happened. I've since decided not to delete it so that I can offer feedback in the OGL Playtest.
    Insert Clever Signature Here

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    I will hold my opinion until I see the actual document.

    If their new license was just basically 1.0a++ (add in a few "hey, we can't be sued if you do something dumb and get sued" clauses, make it clear that WotC is not associated with any BS you publish, clean up the language a bit), I'd be fine with a deauth/forced upgrade to the new license.

    But I highly doubt that that will be the case. Instead, I expect they're going to try to prevent (as much as possible) a forking of the game and "encourage" everyone now publishing 5.0 material to move over to OneD&D.

    But I've been wrong before. So I'm holding off on anything.

    I did deactivate my subscription, but I didn't remove my account entirely. So I can still comment on the survey regardless.
    Last edited by PhoenixPhyre; 2023-01-18 at 02:21 PM.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    Instead, I expect they're going to try to prevent (as much as possible) a forking of the game and "encourage" everyone now publishing 5.0 material to move over to OneD&D.
    I expect this as well. The really funny thing is, the simplest and surest way to make sure (almost) everyone starts writing for OneD&D is to do nothing at all. Just let 1.0a stand as-is. But of course, they can't just do nothing.
    Insert Clever Signature Here

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2013

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    I'm still not sure they can deauthorize the 1.0a. There is nothing in the 1.0a agreement that allows them to deauthorize the agreement unless I missed something. Granted, fighting this would require a significant amount of resources to get a legal ruling saying so.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by skyth View Post
    I'm still not sure they can deauthorize the 1.0a. There is nothing in the 1.0a agreement that allows them to deauthorize the agreement unless I missed something. Granted, fighting this would require a significant amount of resources to get a legal ruling saying so.
    Can't really discuss that per forum rules. Suffice it to say that, as I understand it, it is possible for them to deauth it.
    Insert Clever Signature Here

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Oramac View Post
    I expect this as well. The really funny thing is, the simplest and surest way to make sure (almost) everyone starts writing for OneD&D is to do nothing at all. Just let 1.0a stand as-is. But of course, they can't just do nothing.
    Agreed. Put out a must have product and demand will follow. Try to get clever with legal maneuvers and you can burn your bridge and kill that golden goose good.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Thanks for a place to discuss this. I wouldn't have thought to look for it outside of the D&D sections of the forum. Maybe an announcement there to point folks here would be helpful.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Trafford, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by da newt View Post
    Thanks for a place to discuss this. I wouldn't have thought to look for it outside of the D&D sections of the forum. Maybe an announcement there to point folks here would be helpful.
    My suggestion would be for an admin to re-open the old threads to add a pointer to here, then close them down again. It's a lot of footwork, but I think it's worthwhile in this case. Of course, I don't have to do that footwork....

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Oramac View Post
    I expect this as well. The really funny thing is, the simplest and surest way to make sure (almost) everyone starts writing for OneD&D is to do nothing at all. Just let 1.0a stand as-is. But of course, they can't just do nothing.
    The thing is, doing nothing doesn't address either of their "core goals" as laid out in the press release. Per Kyle, these are: "protecting and cultivating an inclusive play environment, and limiting the OGL to TTRPGs."

    The former gets into things like the NuTSR stuff we can't talk about here, so I'll skip that.

    Focusing on the latter, that's perhaps the biggest gap in 1.0a that they'll want to close - right now, the kinds of products that can be made using 1.0a are vague at best; which is how you end up with companies like Owlcat making tens of millions of dollars without WotC seeing a thin dime, even when WotC laid the groundwork. That is only going to increase as these alternative D&D-derived experiences grow in popularity and visibility.

    And keep in mind too that whatever version of the OGL they end up going with, even if they back off completely and stick with 1.0a, their company's name will be part of the license's language. I can understand Wizards of the Coast wanting some measure of control over which books are allowed to include the words "Wizards of the Coast" between their covers.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    thethird's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2013

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Personally I play on derivatives of 3.5, so that means that for me the ogl 1.0a is important. Most products I am excited lately are updates to pathfinder 1st edition, that definitely uses the srd. So to me, personally, revoking or deauthorizing the ogl 1.0a has a negative impact. I can easily understand if the publishers I follow want to move on to greener pastures.

    For my part I feel that this has been handled really really poorly. And I don't feel confident that this will improve.

    As to the other points I don't think it's a good idea to just be happy the conceded them. If the ogl 1.0a was alive and well those other points wouldn't be necessary. And if they defacto gain now the capacity to revoke/deauthorize versions now then down the line there is nothing ensuring they won't keep doing that. I personally feel that that's important. And how a precendet is set here will impact us down the line.
    Thanks a lot Gengy for the awesome... just a sec... avatar. :)

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    The thing is, doing nothing doesn't address either of their "core goals" as laid out in the press release. Per Kyle, these are: "protecting and cultivating an inclusive play environment, and limiting the OGL to TTRPGs."

    snip

    And keep in mind too that whatever version of the OGL they end up going with, even if they back off completely and stick with 1.0a, their company's name will be part of the license's language. I can understand Wizards of the Coast wanting some measure of control over which books are allowed to include the words "Wizards of the Coast" between their covers.
    Yea, that's a fair point. And I do get it. Were it my company I'd feel the same way. But really, it would be as easy as updating 1.0a to explicitly denote approved media (and specifying what exactly is covered by "static"), thereby banning all other media. Of course, this would still make a lot of people mad, but it's probably the least-bad middle ground.

    As to the other point, yea, not gonna touch that.
    Insert Clever Signature Here

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2016

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    It I think it's fair to say most of the damage has been done already. Even if wotc leaves the ogl 1.0a alone for the time being, the fact that they were at any point looking to kill it makes it risky to use going forward.

    Furthermore, while we don't have ogl 2.0 yet, if it gives wotc the ability to modify the license, then it doesn't really matter what they take out, as they could always add it back in later. (Especially if said updates are forced and non-optional)

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    NinjaGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2013

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
    2) They lied in this statement and even I noticed the lie. They are still pretending 1.1 was a "draft" despite it being sent out as part of contracts (allegedly). If I catch you lying to me, I won't trust you. Stop lying.
    This is something that has started bugging me. 1.1, or the draft OGL, did not take legal effect (except maybe through Kickstarter?). I think that makes it a draft. They didn't mean for it to be a draft, but since they have to revise and/or start over, it becomes a draft retroactively.

    And, what else are we supposed to call the leaked .......document? proposed contract?

    You call it 1.1, but there's no assurance at all that Wizards will follow that numbering convention--they might call whatever they release on Friday "OGL 1.1, Draft Edition."

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Whether they "lied" about it being a draft or not depends a lot on the meaning of the term "draft" in this context, and that can't really be discussed here as it's a legal term.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    This bit stands out to me:

    Your OGL 1.0a content. Nothing will impact any content you have published under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a.
    Published. Still looks like they're gonna try to deauthorize 1.0a and send any unpublished works to the scrap heap. Like they said last announcement, just less clearly this time.
    mew

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Trafford, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by catagent101 View Post
    Published. Still looks like they're gonna try to deauthorize 1.0a and send any unpublished works to the scrap heap. Like they said last announcement, just less clearly this time.
    I've been trying to figure out how that applies to reprintings of stuff already published. Fortunately for me, I have several contract attorneys in the family, so I'm not concerned about the pesky forum rules.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    If that statement is to be believed, happy to see some items being walked back. Will be interested to see how this plays out over the next few weeks.
    Roll for it
    5e Houserules and Homebrew
    Old Extended Signature
    Awesome avatar by Ceika

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by catagent101 View Post
    This bit stands out to me:

    Published. Still looks like they're gonna try to deauthorize 1.0a and send any unpublished works to the scrap heap. Like they said last announcement, just less clearly this time.
    Yeah. And this, for me[1], has always been the sticky point. Ok, one of the sticky points[2]. A forced revocation of 1.0a effective immediately (as opposed to effective on works for OneD&D or the like) is, to me, completely unacceptable. Because while I have no interest in OneD&D (for entirely content-based reasons), I would still like to "publish" (even at the "post on the internet for free" level) works for 5e. And having to update to a possibly-unconscionable (for all the other sticky reasons) license is a non-starter.

    Plus the obvious anti-competitive, death-to-Paizo (who I'm not the biggest fan of, to be clear) reasons that make it a jerk move IMO.

    [1] as someone who has no intent to commercially publish but does extensive homebrew that gets posted and thus falls afoul of various related issues.
    [2] not fond of a bunch of the other provisions, some of which they've said they're walking back.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Idkwhatmyscreen View Post
    It I think it's fair to say most of the damage has been done already. Even if wotc leaves the ogl 1.0a alone for the time being, the fact that they were at any point looking to kill it makes it risky to use going forward.

    Furthermore, while we don't have ogl 2.0 yet, if it gives wotc the ability to modify the license, then it doesn't really matter what they take out, as they could always add it back in later. (Especially if said updates are forced and non-optional)
    This is the thing for me. Given what WotC has already attempted to do, and Hasbro’s stated position that the brand is undermonitized, there is no reason to trust them and every reason to distrust them.
    I consider myself an author first, a GM second and a player third.

    The three skill-sets are only tangentially related.

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Trafford, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Idkwhatmyscreen View Post
    It I think it's fair to say most of the damage has been done already. Even if wotc leaves the ogl 1.0a alone for the time being, the fact that they were at any point looking to kill it makes it risky to use going forward.

    Furthermore, while we don't have ogl 2.0 yet, if it gives wotc the ability to modify the license, then it doesn't really matter what they take out, as they could always add it back in later. (Especially if said updates are forced and non-optional)
    Really, all they need to do to regain a lot of that is to add the one magic word: irrevocable. Release 1.0(b) with that one modification and no others and I'd be willing to cut them a lot of slack on whatever they do going forward.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by catagent101 View Post
    This bit stands out to me:



    Published. Still looks like they're gonna try to deauthorize 1.0a and send any unpublished works to the scrap heap. Like they said last announcement, just less clearly this time.
    Given their stated "core goal" of limiting the OGL to Tabletop RPGs, this is wholly understandable. If they leave 1.0a intact and publish OGL 2.0 as a separate, parallel thing, someone could still decide to ignore the latter and just go make a new video game etc. using the former, even one worth millions - just like Owlcat did.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    Yeah. And this, for me[1], has always been the sticky point. Ok, one of the sticky points[2]. A forced revocation of 1.0a effective immediately (as opposed to effective on works for OneD&D or the like) is, to me, completely unacceptable. Because while I have no interest in OneD&D (for entirely content-based reasons), I would still like to "publish" (even at the "post on the internet for free" level) works for 5e. And having to update to a possibly-unconscionable (for all the other sticky reasons) license is a non-starter.

    Plus the obvious anti-competitive, death-to-Paizo (who I'm not the biggest fan of, to be clear) reasons that make it a jerk move IMO.

    [1] as someone who has no intent to commercially publish but does extensive homebrew that gets posted and thus falls afoul of various related issues.
    [2] not fond of a bunch of the other provisions, some of which they've said they're walking back.
    1) We'll have to wait to see the new version to know for sure - but I'd be very surprised if you're unable to use it to publish 5e homebrew even if you want to ignore 1DnD completely.

    2) The new version is highly unlikely to kill Paizo either, especially not with the royalty and licenseback pieces removed. (It's moot once they switch gears to ORC anyway.)

    Quote Originally Posted by FrancisBean View Post
    Really, all they need to do to regain a lot of that is to add the one magic word: irrevocable. Release 1.0(b) with that one modification and no others and I'd be willing to cut them a lot of slack on whatever they do going forward.
    This doesn't address either of their stated core goals though.
    Last edited by Psyren; 2023-01-18 at 05:56 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •