Official OGL Discussion Thread

[OldTrees1]

Oh I just noticed sections 1(b) and 1(d) are also mutable (via dependance on a separate document). The latter is not a big deal but the former is. They can change the terms for VTTs at any time they want.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

Yeah. I started to write up a response and then realized that doing so was way too close to the line. Suffice it to say "there are definitions more specific than that, and they're a high bar."

Wotc currently doesn't even have to tell what in the work is offensive. At least at that point it could be changed and republished.

Heck, the work itself can be completely fine, but because you got a speeding ticket, boom license revoked. Don't engage in illegal activities if you want to publish books about breaking into strongholds, killing the inhabitants, and taking their stuff.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

Oh I just noticed sections 1(b) and 1(d) are also mutable (via dependance on a separate document). The latter is not a big deal but the former is. They can change the terms for VTTs at any time they want.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that Wotc will use any mutablity to screw people over in the future.

No reason to give them benefit of the doubt right now

[Rynjin]

There is no "game." It's the best option and you have no better alternative.

I actually do have a "better alternative". It's pretty simple...NOBODY gets to have an effective monopoly on the market and simultaneously establish themselves as the morality police for what is acceptable in a TTRPG. Developers and audiences can decide that for themselves, they don't need Mommy of the Coast "thinking of the children".

That would be the best for everyone involved. Corporations should not get to decide what is considered "moral", especially when most of the people in charge of them have no morality. Unfortunately due to board rules I cannot bring up specific examples of how our society has been changed for the worse when this was allowed in the past, but I'm sure you can think of a few if you've been following the news over the last 15 years or so.

Yes but that doesn't mean you have to like it or accept it. The key issue is WOTC wanting to get rid OGL 1.0A. Those who are angry about this must be vigilant not to let that happen just because WOTC walks back what they never cared about or expected to be accepted.

I agree. What I meant to call out was the few people throwing the word "cynical" around as a dismissal of any questioning of Wizards' and Hasbro's motives. I've seen at least one person say that if you don't take their words (the "apology") 100% at face value, you're being "cynical.".

[Atranen]

For starters, Paizo DO have sole right to decide, per the second passage I quoted that you omitted; the first doesn't actually matter. If WotC had snuck a clause like that into 1.2 they'd never hear the end of it.

I didn't omit that passage, I addressed it in the following section:

Regarding termination, the PF2e license seems to be for licensed works that bear the compatibility logo and font etc. As far as I'm aware (although I don't play PF2e), you can still publish PF2e content under the OGL as long as you don't use the compatibility logo and font etc. Terminating this kind of license is a different beast than terminating the OGL wholesale.

Specifically, I think the termination clause Paizo includes and WoTC's termination clause are different because they are different types of licenses. PF2E is under the OGL, so you can take and publish compatible material with it and they have no right to terminate. If you want the 'Pathfinder 2e compatible' sticker on it, you need to accept an additional license. From their FAQ

The Pathfinder RPG is an OGL product. Doesn't the OGL already allow me to make products using the Pathfinder RPG?

Yes and no. While the Open Game Content of the Pathfinder RPG is indeed available for use under the OGL, Section 7 of the OGL says "You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark." So while the OGL allows you to make compatible products, it forbids you from indicating compatibility using the terms "Pathfinder," "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game," or "Paizo," since those are our trademarks. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatibility License serves as "another, independent Agreement" allowing you to use our Compatibility Logo to indicate compatibility with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.

I think anyone here would be satisfied (or at least much more satisfied) if OneD&D followed the same licensing as PF2e; under the OGL, but with an additional license requirement for the 'compatible with' tag.

So, to get back to your original point: Paizo doesn't have the sole right to decide, so long as something compatible with PF2e is published under the OGL only. But WoTC does have the sole right to decide, for anything published under OGL 1.2.

And second - "the general public would classify" might be more ambiguous, but actually pulling the trigger on a violation is still up to them. You then get to appeal. If general public is more to your liking though, I could be okay with WotC downgrading to that, provided it's been tested, which I'm sure they'll determine. Still, again, they made sure they're not actually beholden to the general public so it's moot.

Addressed above--Paizo cannot pull the trigger for OGL material.

It's a way to open the dialogue, but it doesn't mean the community gets everything, there's still give and take. There was considerable outcry against deauthorizing 1.0a and that's clearly still happening.

But here we are entirely at the mercy of what WoTC decides is or isn't inclusive. I understand that you trust them to decide that in an appropriate manner. I, and others, do not. It's easy to imagine a scenario in which WoTC moves in a direction you would disagree with. How would you respond if WoTC unilaterally chose to do something you thought hurt inclusivity?

If you've looked into it, then you know why any answer you could provide would support a lack of definition. Getting you to go look into why your argument isn't very convincing is the point.

If you want to go with what could be used for the OGL, then my counterpoint is that standard practices for morality clauses are NOT to define what triggers them, as supported by a cursory google for morality clause examples.

I don't know much about morality clauses. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the PF2e model Psyren showed us is a reasonable one--a broadly open license, and a more restrictive one for more closely related material.

[Psyren]

I actually do have a "better alternative". It's pretty simple...NOBODY gets to have an effective monopoly on the market and simultaneously establish themselves as the morality police for what is acceptable in a TTRPG. Developers and audiences can decide that for themselves, they don't need Mommy of the Coast "thinking of the children".

That would be the best for everyone involved. Corporations should not get to decide what is considered "moral", especially when most of the people in charge of them have no morality. Unfortunately due to board rules I cannot bring up specific examples of how our society has been changed for the worse when this was allowed in the past, but I'm sure you can think of a few if you've been following the news over the last 15 years or so.

So no clause at all, despite their clearly stated "core goal?"

[Unoriginal]

So no clause at all, despite their clearly stated "core goal?"

Those "core goals" are transparent fig leaves, no matter how they try to state them.

[Atranen]

So no clause at all, despite their clearly stated "core goal?"

There are ways to realize their core goals that do not require that restriction in the license.

[Psyren]

...
So, to get back to your original point: Paizo doesn't have the sole right to decide, so long as something compatible with PF2e is published under the OGL only. But WoTC does have the sole right to decide, for anything published under OGL 1.2.

"You can choose to publish under the license or not" is a choice everyone has. Yes, I know the PCL is meant to work in conjunction with the OGL rather than preventing someone from publishing under the OGL alone, so it's not a perfect parallel to 1.2; I brought it up more as a way of pointing out that ORC, which will get heavy input from Paizo during its creation, is not likely to be the free speech absolutist paradise some folks here seem to be angling for.

But here we are entirely at the mercy of what WoTC decides is or isn't inclusive. I understand that you trust them to decide that in an appropriate manner. I, and others, do not. It's easy to imagine a scenario in which WoTC moves in a direction you would disagree with. How would you respond if WoTC unilaterally chose to do something you thought hurt inclusivity?

I've already said I'm okay with removing the "thou shalt not sue" language from that clause, and possibly even okay with adding "general public" as the standard. But I'm definitely not in favor of Rynjin's "no clause" approach.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There are ways to realize their core goals that do not require that restriction in the license.

And that restriction in the license doesn't even really accomplish their "core goals". Especially now that the parts that most people consider "D&D" (ie the core mechanics) aren't even under the OGL and so aren't restricted by that license. You can make a Racists and Sexists splat that claims compatibility with D&D 5e without even touching the OGL.

[Snowbluff]

I believe that a decent number of kickstarters for like adventure supplements tend to publish both a 5e and 3.5e version of the module (after all, it's only a matter of converting the monsters and such over)

Maintaining older edition support is something that for sure needs to be in new OGL if it is to be acceptable

Thank you for the information, I will include it!

If you've looked into it, then you know why any answer you could provide would support a lack of definition. Getting you to go look into why your argument isn't very convincing is the point.

If you want to go with what could be used for the OGL, then my counterpoint is that standard practices for morality clauses are NOT to define what triggers them, as supported by a cursory google for morality clause examples.

Ice cold but I get what you mean.

[Atranen]

"You can choose to publish under the license or not" is a choice everyone has. Yes, I know the PCL is meant to work in conjunction with the OGL rather than preventing someone from publishing under the OGL alone, so it's not a perfect parallel to 1.2; I brought it up more as a way of pointing out that ORC, which will get heavy input from Paizo during its creation, is not likely to be the free speech absolutist paradise some folks here seem to be angling for.

That remains to be seen. The people at Paizo helped draft the OGL and support the OGL, so my belief that ORC will be similar to OGL is merited.

I've already said I'm okay with removing the "thou shalt not sue" language from that clause, and possibly even okay with adding "general public" as the standard. But I'm definitely not in favor of Rynjin's "no clause" approach.

That's fine. I'm still interested in, and you still haven't explained why, you think the clause is so beneficial to the TTRPG community to be worth the effect on 3PP.

What benefit am I as a member of the TTRPG community seeing from this?

[Psyren]

What benefit am I as a member of the TTRPG community seeing from this?

You get the benefit of still being allowed to use their intellectual property after 1.0a is deauthorized.

[Rynjin]

So no clause at all, despite their clearly stated "core goal?"

I cannot express how little of a **** I care about Wizards' core goals.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You get the benefit of still being allowed to use their intellectual property after 1.0a is deauthorized.

Status Quo Ante...except worse. Yay. Much thanks for the beatings, WotC!

[Atranen]

You get the benefit of still being allowed to use their intellectual property after 1.0a is deauthorized.

So the situation is explicitly worse for me as a consumer compared to what it was previously, when 1.0a was authorized?

[PhoenixPhyre]

So the situation is explicitly worse for me as a consumer compared to what it was previously, when 1.0a was authorized?

“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday […] it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it. [...] The eyeless creature at the other table swallowed it fanatically. passionately, with a furious desire to track down, denounce, and vaporize anyone who should suggest that last week the ration had been thirty grams.

Thanks WotC!

[ToranIronfinder]

Let's step back a second. There are degrees of vagueness, this is at the extreme side of vague. At a minimum it needs an intentionality and deliberate clause, as otherwise the issue comes down to readers response and not the authors intent. This is, in my professional opinion, extremely poor standards for interpreting anything, but is stifling for the industry as a whole. , often the readers spout off on Twitter wothout fulfilling their epistemic duties. Someone woth no sense of irony starts taking a villain and paints this as if the author intended him or her to be a hero. A film was shelved a few years ago, over an issue by groups, for example, thst should have understood that the film viewed them a good bit more sympathetic than they realized. I've been in conversations where people have angrily inserted themselves on objectively incorrect information (they thought we were discussing a overnight world leader rather than someone who had long been dead). The clause therefore as it stands is defective from the standpoint of rationality, it is rather unworkable for anyone that wants to produce anything that isn't pablum, because one can never really know what someone will claim about your work due to their own failure to read carefully, and ask the right questions before trying to form a twitter mob.

But it needs a bit more than this, again because someone has to comply with the license and that requires a better definition of what you are complying too. There is what lawyers might call no due process here, and that is concerning to me as a thinker. The burden of proof is on the person claiming someone's work is derogatory. This seems to imply they can, and will reverse what is the reasonable standard of a rational society and require the victim of a mob to prove his work is innocent rather than require someone to prove his work is guilty.

It should be something that any creator will say, not until something less vague is in place. Which brings us back to the similarity problem and the need for more to be placed in the CC, at least until the courts start hearing cases.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Atranen
Suppose some version of their Spelljammer issue happened with a 3PP. In WoTC's case, they published an errata and apology online, and that was that.

Originally Posted by White Blade
The rewriting of the Hadozee show that WotC can believe it is acting in good faith and doing diligence and then be persuaded (totally voluntarily) to take down the content.

Can anyone point me to some background on these two incidents?

[Atranen]

Can anyone point me to some background on these two incidents?

Here's the official statement. I won't go into detail here, but searching the keywords from that should give you relevant results.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1334...on-the-hadozee

[Unoriginal]

You get the benefit of still being allowed to use their intellectual property after 1.0a is deauthorized.

Ah, so we must accept WotC as moral arbiters, because their lawyers told them they could burn the OGL and replace it with a charter giving them that authority.

Yeah, no. That is not how it works.

So the situation is explicitly worse for me as a consumer compared to what it was previously, when 1.0a was authorized?

Indeed.

[Tanarii]

Alea iacta est

And furthermore, their actions in other realms of 5e have shown that their belief about what is "bad things" (in those terms) is so radically different (and radically much more expansive) than any definition I consider sane that even if they don't intend malice, their decisions will be bad from my point of view. Even if they're acting entirely in good faith (yeah right).

Indeed. I'm aware of some of the worst case situations that have arisen in recent history with 3PPs. But they've already demonstrated to me repeatedly that their definition of "bad things" is far wider than that worst case in their recent decisions for their own products, far beyond reasonable. They don't have malice at all. But when your position is driven by extremes, it often results in actions that are identical to those that have actual intent to do harm.

Using this as justification for deauthorizing 1.0(a) is the proof in the pudding. They are doing harm by attempting to deauthorize.

(By the way "intend malice" is like saying atm machine. )

[Saintheart]

Can anyone point me to some background on these two incidents?

Hadozee Drama, in summary.

[Lemmy]

You get the benefit of still being allowed to use their intellectual property after 1.0a is deauthorized.

Do we? Do we really?

The OGL doesn't allow you to use copyrighted material. And they can't copyright game mechanics in the first place...

The main benefit of OGL 1.0 was knowing that you wouldn't have to enter petty legal battles against a billion-dollar corporation because they claim your elves and wizards are too similar to theirs... And the "O"GL 1.2 doesn't even offer that. Quite the opposite, actually. It destroys any security any creators could have. Even if the final updated OGL actually has good terms on it, what's stopping WotC from trying the same BS a year from now???

What's anyone actually gaining from using the OGL 1.2? A pat on the back from Hasbro/WotC before they inevitably abuse it?

Hell! Even the "deauthorization" idea is not something that's supposed to be allowed, as clearly stated by the very creators of the OGL multiple times over the years! The very fact that WotC is attempting to do it shows that they are more than willing to use their resources in a court of law to argue anything that would benefit them, no matter how disingenuous or dishonest.

Because why create a good product when you can just stifle competition, bully small creators and steal their money?

...And these are the people we are supposed to trust with absolutely incontestable decision power on what's harmful, immoral or offensive? Yeah... No.

[Unoriginal]

Can anyone point me to some background on these two incidents?

A different incident, but a notable one given the current thread topic, was the rewriting by WotC of the "Book of Cylinder" adventure in Candlekeep Mystery, and the nature of the rewrites made the original author want his name removed from the work.

WotC was entirely in its legal right to change the adventure as it pleased them (since they did purchase it, after all) and that they had no obligation to inform the author of those changes, as he says so himself.

With that OGL 1.2, WotC wants to have essentially kind of legal power over every single piece of content produced under their license (as in, if you wrote X and they want Y, you either change to Y or your content doesn't hit the stores), and they're the ones to decide what is offensive or hateful or morally wrong.

I reiterate: the same people who approved the changes described above and chose to not warn the author he was promoting an adventure that no longer existed as he described it to potential customers are the ones who decide what is offensive or hateful or morally wrong.

[Segev]

I think part of the issue here is that what might need to be questioned is whether WotC should be allowed to achieve all of its "core goals" without losing as much if not more support than they already have.

In other words: are their "core goals" actually defensible?

Are their "core goals" legitimate? Or are they stalking horses for something else?

Do their changes actually support the "core goals" in the best and least disruptive way possible, or are the things they do as "side effects" the actual, unspoken, wink-and-a-nod-we-promise-we-don't-mean-it goals?


But, again, are what they list as core goals something that the pushback should be aimed at persuading them to drop or change?

[ToranIronfinder]

Hadozee Drama, in summary.

Wow thanks, I had no idea the bar was set by WOTC that low.

If they want to recall their products that is their business, but applying a bar this low to someone else's work would be intellectually indefensible. Parallels and construals are not strong enough to make the types of claims this article is making.

Yeah, that is why this is statement is too vague--something more is needed to have a standard that can be objectively applied and it really needs words like deliberate and intentional. I'd never publish something under this, it would be foolish.

[Delicious Taffy]

I don't really understand all the legalese and terms being tossed around, but from what little I can tell, this OGL thing sounds like it only applies to for-profit content and not freely distributed material. Is that accurate?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Woe thanks, I had no idea the bar was set by WOTC that low.

I they want to recall their products that is there business, but applying a bar this low to someone else's work would intellectually indefensible. Parallels and construals are not strong enough to make the types of claims this article is making.

Yeah, that is why this is statement is too vague--something more is needed to have a standard that can be objectively applied and it really needs words like deliberate and intentional. I'd never publish something under this, it would be foolish.

Yeah, that's only the most recent example of WotC's "standards" being way more...extreme...than anything I'd consider sane to apply to anyone else's content. Sure, they can do whatever the heck they want with their own product, but when you're exercising life-or-death over someone else's content? Yeah. No thanks.

I don't really understand all the legalese and terms being tossed around, but from what little I can tell, this OGL thing sounds like it only applies to for-profit content and not freely distributed material. Is that accurate?

At this point, it applies to anything that
a) includes mechanical content (so it's not covered by the fan policy)
b) uses material from the non-CC portions of the SRD (so basically any class information, species information, magic items, anything from a monster at a minimum).

Commercial vs non-commercial matters not in the slightest.

[Psyren]

So the situation is explicitly worse for me as a consumer compared to what it was previously, when 1.0a was authorized?

Any restriction they impose will be a step down from 1.0a which barely had any (besides "no product identity" anyway.) I sympathize with that, and I don't expect to be able to sell you or anyone on it; all I can say is that I understand why the move makes sense from a business standpoint. And it's true that WotC's customers may not see the benefits of that for quite a while. The real goal of this updated license is future-proofing.