Official OGL Discussion Thread

[ToranIronfinder]

they can if the license says they can abd you sign it. shrug?

{Scrubbed}

[EggKookoo]

Speaking of "Waylocator", here's some cool Paizo and ORC news.

Apparently since last week 1,500+ creators of various sizes have already pledged to produce content under the ORC.

What, no White Wolf?

[Atranen]

Since some people are mentioning the idea of Microsoft or whoever using the OGL to make a D&D-esque video game, I suppose my amateur programmer opinion is worth something here.

I don't think that makes a lot of sense tbh. D&D is very much a game made for humans and you're going to have to rewrite enough stuff that it's essentially your own thing by that point. Design decisions that work for a ttrpg a lot of the time don't work for a crpg or just computer games in general, even if you're trying to evoke the "feel" of a ttrpg because you're operating in an entirely different environment (the example that comes to mind is Betrayal at Club Low which gets that "feel" really well but would translate poorly to tabletop).

Also video games inspired by D&D are almost as old as D&D itself and that train has rusted and turned to scrap by now.

Agreed. I don't get the cRPG angle in the slightest. There's a long history here, and as far as I can tell, nothing for a D&D fan to complain about.

No one's complaining about WotC applying any standard to their license. What people are complaining about is them applying it to a license that then retroactively disables a prior license. And this concern isn't over the overt content of the standard but over how that standard will be wielded in a competitive environment by a company that has repeatedly demonstrated bad faith in these kinds of things.

Trying to make it about the content of the standard is exactly the kind of doublespeak people are concerned about.

Yeah, focusing on the 'oh suppose someone used the mechanics to do something awful' case is just a distraction. People can publish bad games anyway, and there's not a lot to stop them. They'll be thoroughly rejected by the community, as was the case for NuTSR. A new OGL doesn't meaningfully help the situation.

[Rynjin]

What, no White Wolf?

They might actually be, that's not a full list. For example, Drop Dead Studios has confirmed their involvement, they're just not on the shortlist there.

I'm glad to see Pinnacle on that list as well, they're one of the other "big" names in the industry (comparatively speaking).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Trying to make it about the content of the standard is exactly the kind of doublespeak people are concerned about.

Yeah. WotC here as well as the defenses I've read of it smells very much like "you don't want to give us final editorial control over what you write, able to take it down or leave it up at a whim? You must be a Bad Person who wants to publish Bad Things."

It's a very very common, and very very slimy tactic.

[EggKookoo]

They might actually be, that's not a full list. For example, Drop Dead Studios has confirmed their involvement, they're just not on the shortlist there.

I was being facetious. White Wolf was bought by Paradox Interactive a few years back and was basically dissolved and turned into Renegade Game Studios, who now handles the WoD stuff. Maybe Renegade will show up at some point.

[johnbragg]

But their proposed clause only makes that worse by giving an impression of prior authorization (that is, if something is published and not taken down, then WotC is fine with it). Sure, that's obviously garbage to any fair-minded individual, but that impression is stronger than it is currently. So this creates a worse environment than the status quo and certainly a worse environment than a strongly-worded disclaimer requirement.

Worse....for whom?

As of now, a Problematic Person can create stuff under OGL 1.0a, a tiktok-er can start a viral thread denouncing it and denouncing Wizards for, I don't know, "creating an environment welcoming to Problematic Persons", and WOTC PR department can't do anything except release a statement which will only make everyone mad. (HAlf of the culture war will be mad that it's a toothless statement, the other half will be mad at the statement.)

Once OGL 1.2 is in effect (assuming the current version or anything like it), if a PRoblematic PErson creates under OGL 1.0a, WOTC can credibly say "Not my circus, not my monkeys", and if that doesn't work, they can try to go after Problematic GAmes and see if the de-authorization of OGL 1.0a stands up in court. IF a PRoblematic PErson creates under OGL 1.2, Wizards can nuke PRoblematic Games from orbit.

That's an option that Hasbro HQ wants to have. That option is probably worth more (in the opinion of Hasbro HQ) than the entire value that 3PP open-gaming provides to WOTC.

Nothing will stop culture-war zealots from culture-warring. Neither law, nor morality, nor strongly-worded license statements. So "worrying about a future author taking unpopular stand problem"[1] isn't actually solvable. You can make things slightly better or worse...and their actions make it worse here, not better.

[1] which isn't a problem that this license would solve unless you're admitting that the real goal is to go after unrelated statements by the authors. Which I hope we can all agree is beyond the pale?

I sympathize with you on this question, but empirically I don't think "we can all agree" is true.

No one should have the legal right to force withdrawal of <normal work X> because the author later made some statement certain people disagree with or has a particular belief they disagree with. That, in my mind, is outright Evil. Regardless of who the author is or what they said. Works stand on their own. You're free to buy or not buy, publish or not publish, but no one should be able to pull licenses over unrelated statements.

Unpopular positions by creators can reduce the monetizable value of the brand.

EDIT: Maybe think of it this way. WOTC wants the option of publicly throwing unpopular or inconvenient creators to the wolves if the then-current environment seems to make it profitable.

[Rynjin]

I was being facetious. White Wolf was bought by Paradox Interactive a few years back and was basically dissolved and turned into Renegade Game Studios, who now handles the WoD stuff. Maybe Renegade will show up at some point.

Rrrreally? I definitely missed that bit of news. Or forgot it.

With Paradox being in the mix, I'm very surprised it's Wizards of all businesses that started trying to put microtransactions and subscriptions into their TRPGs.

[Atranen]

Worse....for whom?

As of now, a Problematic Person can create stuff under OGL 1.0a, a tiktok-er can start a viral thread denouncing it and denouncing Wizards for, I don't know, "creating an environment welcoming to Problematic Persons", and WOTC PR department can't do anything except release a statement which will only make everyone mad. (HAlf of the culture war will be mad that it's a toothless statement, the other half will be mad at the statement.)

Once OGL 1.2 is in effect (assuming the current version or anything like it), if a PRoblematic PErson creates under OGL 1.0a, WOTC can credibly say "Not my circus, not my monkeys", and if that doesn't work, they can try to go after Problematic GAmes and see if the de-authorization of OGL 1.0a stands up in court. IF a PRoblematic PErson creates under OGL 1.2, Wizards can nuke PRoblematic Games from orbit.

That's an option that Hasbro HQ wants to have. That option is probably worth more (in the opinion of Hasbro HQ) than the entire value that 3PP open-gaming provides to WOTC.

I'm not convinced this will happen under the current OGL. It's been around for decades and as far as I know nothing like it has occurred. People generally get that the creator of an open license is not responsible for everything done with it. For all we know, the NuTSR people used Linux. No one is coming after Linux because of it.

If something does occur and paints WoTC in a bad light, I'd be sympathetic to them making small targeted changes to the OGL to prevent that from happening in the future.

[Psyren]

No one's complaining about WotC applying any standard to their license. What people are complaining about is them applying it to a license that then retroactively disables a prior license. And this concern isn't over the overt content of the standard but over how that standard will be wielded in a competitive environment by a company that has repeatedly demonstrated bad faith in these kinds of things.

I proposed two amendments that I think address the "how it is wielded" concern, and I will also propose those in the survey. Beyond that I don't think there's anything I can add, we may have to agree to disagree.

And I will strongly and vehemently oppose any license that claims the right to deplatform people for taking unpopular stands. Do they have the legal right to do so? Probably. Should they (morally)? Absolutely not and I will oppose any such license. Especially, like this one, where it's obviously a transparent pretext to weaponize it against anyone they don't happen to like or that angers the twitter mafia so they can appear virtuous while cutting off competition.

Deplatforming bad actors (whether recurrent, or egregious) is not negative, it is necessary. This very forum has provisions for deplatforming people. People having a right to express themselves, does not mean they have the right to any means of that expression they might want, nor does it mean they get to be the ultimate judge of their content when making that determination.

So, just to be clear, the fact of copying the 5e rules for the new Waylocator game is NOT part of that harm by itself, yes?

Not sure I understand but I suspect this is drifting into examples I can't give here.

Worse....for whom?

As of now, a Problematic Person can create stuff under OGL 1.0a, a tiktok-er can start a viral thread denouncing it and denouncing Wizards for, I don't know, "creating an environment welcoming to Problematic Persons", and WOTC PR department can't do anything except release a statement which will only make everyone mad. (HAlf of the culture war will be mad that it's a toothless statement, the other half will be mad at the statement.)

Once OGL 1.2 is in effect (assuming the current version or anything like it), if a PRoblematic PErson creates under OGL 1.0a, WOTC can credibly say "Not my circus, not my monkeys", and if that doesn't work, they can try to go after Problematic GAmes and see if the de-authorization of OGL 1.0a stands up in court. IF a PRoblematic PErson creates under OGL 1.2, Wizards can nuke PRoblematic Games from orbit.

That's an option that Hasbro HQ wants to have. That option is probably worth more (in the opinion of Hasbro HQ) than the entire value that 3PP open-gaming provides to WOTC.



I sympathize with you on this question, but empirically I don't think "we can all agree" is true.



Unpopular positions by creators can reduce the monetizable value of the brand.

EDIT: Maybe think of it this way. WOTC wants the option of publicly throwing unpopular or inconvenient creators to the wolves if the then-current environment seems to make it profitable.

johnbragg continues to be on the money.

[MonochromeTiger]

The kind you know we can't discuss here.

We can't discuss the simple answer of "a bunch of people would be upset at the people who published it and a few would be upset at WotC but WotC would be able to point out that they just got in by barely fitting the standards of an agreement and aren't actually associated with WotC's views"? Because honestly that's not nearly as harmful or damaging to WotC and Hasbro as you're implying.

What would be worse is if they had some sort of morality clause where they can shut it down at any time and somebody let it in anyway because they weren't paying attention or wanted to be done for the day and only shut it down when there was finally a public outcry over it. That would be worse because by their own agreement they'd be taking responsibility for having accepted things morally and the late response would easily be taken as only backing away from their acceptance when it looked bad for them too. You know, the kind of situation that wasn't actually a thing before they tried to fit this nonsense in because they could easily point out that "it technically fit the license but we never had a say in its content and never supported its views" isn't the same as "we personally didn't shut it down until people got angry."

The original Baldur's Gate (AD&D)/NWN (3e) games did a reasonably good job of translating, but definitely changed a bunch of stuff to make it work.

From what I know, the recent Pathfinder games are a fairly straight translation, but again with a lot of things at least bolted down that would be more open-ended in a ttrpg. Same with Solasta: Crown of the Magister (which used 5e's ruleset fairly straight).

From my experience with the Pathfinder CRPGs this is the case. Quite a few spells are gone because they just don't fit the constraints of the CRPG, mechanics are changed to be more videogamey like the Mythic rules being reworked to fit themes based on powerful monster types, and of course the obvious change of dialogue and choices being limited to what they could plan for. What is directly shown mostly fits aside from a few changes to keep things from slowing to a complete crawl but there are limits to a CRPG from its set and finite nature as a coded game that a TTRPG just doesn't have because the Game Master and Players are all contributing their own part to it and giving character and content beyond what was strictly planned by whoever made or wrote the adventure.

But I agree--the parts they'd "steal" would be either
a) the core mechanics...which are CC with this draft and so not protected
b) or the lore/worlds/"unique" monsters/spells...which are Unlicensed Content and so not covered by the OGL

The actual OGL content here...isn't all that useful. Or at least it's easily worked around. So this OGL 1.2 doesn't even begin to address the issue at all, meaning that "core goal" is either an indication of stupidity on WotC's part or a fig leaf.

Most likely the latter because at the end of the day most of this reads like the intent was to get rid of the original OGL then get everybody to agree that WotC can shut their content down whenever they want simply because nobody realizes it's safer to just not accept the agreement and find a different way.

To make an argument couched in terms most TTRPG players will know, just like WotC has tried to do to make them more relatable and humanized so that the reaction would be less hostile, people are being asked by a Lawful Evil entity to sign away something valuable for the hope of some boon. They should know there's going to be a catch but the main motivating factor is desperation and the appearance of some more immediate threat even if it means putting them in more danger later.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Worse....for whom?

As of now, a Problematic Person can create stuff under OGL 1.0a, a tiktok-er can start a viral thread denouncing it and denouncing Wizards for, I don't know, "creating an environment welcoming to Problematic Persons", and WOTC PR department can't do anything except release a statement which will only make everyone mad. (HAlf of the culture war will be mad that it's a toothless statement, the other half will be mad at the statement.)

Once OGL 1.2 is in effect (assuming the current version or anything like it), if a PRoblematic PErson creates under OGL 1.0a, WOTC can credibly say "Not my circus, not my monkeys", and if that doesn't work, they can try to go after Problematic GAmes and see if the de-authorization of OGL 1.0a stands up in court. IF a PRoblematic[1] PErson creates under OGL 1.2, Wizards can nuke PRoblematic Games from orbit.

That's an option that Hasbro HQ wants to have. That option is probably worth more (in the opinion of Hasbro HQ) than the entire value that 3PP open-gaming provides to WOTC.

Except that under OGL 1.0a there's an explicit "you can't claim we have anything to do with this" clause. So anyone starting a viral thread is immediately off base and Wizards can say "not our circus, not our monkey" just as well.

And now with the OGL 1.2, there's a more justified presumption that WotC has officially approved anything published with their stamp on it. So WotC is more tied in and throwing them to the wolves is even more likely to cause a riot. Effectively, they've preemptively Streisand Effected themselves, guaranteeing that now it's even easier and lower risk to start a tiktok mob. Meaning it will happen even more frequently

I sympathize with you on this question, but empirically I don't think "we can all agree" is true.

Which is sad. No society can stay together if whipping up a mob against anyone you don't like is incentivized, as this does.

Unpopular positions by creators can reduce the monetizable value of the brand.

EDIT: Maybe think of it this way. WOTC wants the option of publicly throwing unpopular or inconvenient creators to the wolves if the then-current environment seems to make it profitable.

And this is an option that, IMO, no one should have. They have the right to denounce it, just like anyone else.

Remember, they had the option of not publishing an OGL at all and gone with specific use licenses only. That's the only option where they retain control--any form of OGL will inevitably relinquish control and ensure Bad People can do Bad Things with what you've given them. Trying to half-way maintain control like this just makes life worse for everyone without actually fixing or even partially addressing the problem.

[1] I hate this word in this context. Because generally it means "someone who doesn't toe the socially acceptable line as decreed by the most sensitive people" and it's a moving target--it's designed to give the Sensitive People control over everyone else's thought and actions. If they want to unperson you by saying you're Problematic for doing something that was utterly acceptable at the time you did it, they can. And have. And will continue to do so. It's an exercise in naked interpersonal power--curry favor with us or we'll mess up your life.

[Segev]

Without going into the specifics, as an attorney, I'd like to point out that there is disagreement within the legal community on this point as it applies to D&D, with some leaning one way, some the other, and no general consensus other than "could be".

Sure; my point was not to advise anyone to try it. My point was that, given the nature of large numbers of people, SOMEBODY is going to try it.

That's a feature, not a bug. If you tried to make a Waylocator that, say, copied everything from NuTSR's work but the proper names, they would have every right to shut you down and demand that you not use their license to do so. Stopping you under 1.0a would be much harder, which would mean your work can linger out there and cause harm much longer.

You're changing my example to suit your position. Stop that. Did Pathfinder have whatever offensive, harmful whatever you're objecting to? No. Waylocator should be assumed, in good faith argument, to be just a fork of 5.0 the way PF1 was a fork of 3.5. To borrow from Unoriginal:

So, just to be clear, the fact of copying the 5e rules for the new Waylocator game is NOT part of that harm by itself, yes?

My thesis is that the hypothetical Waylocator would be to 5e what PF1 was to 3.5. So if "harm" is needing to be prevented, then that "harm" must have been done by PF1, as well.

You (Psyren) asked what provisions of 1.2 could prevent a new "Pathfinder," not what could justify a "new Pathfinder" being shut down. I actually suspect there are more things in 1.2 that could prevent it, but I haven't poured over it enough to be sure. I know for certain that WotC's "morality clause" would let them shut it down with no reason other than, "Your Waylocator violates our standards of ethics and morality, you disgusting piece of filth." They don't have to justify it by identifying what it is, and even if they do, it doesn't have to be any better than insane troll logic.

Therefore, YES, it's a "feature, not a bug," in the sense that the ability to shut down competition is the feature they're after, and getting to smear anybody they shut down as a terrible person is yet another feature.

Fine - so would you be in favor of it if they included the remedies I listed previously? (You can challenge them legally / general public standard of decency rather than WotC's.)

First off, thanks for repeating the remedies you meant; it is very hard to parse back through a thread and figure out exactly which things somebody is referring to.

Secondly, though, no. It would not. What court? Who's making the decisions? No court, I wager, is going to want to try to define what is "moral" or not; courts are concerned with the law. The best case scenario would be that those remedies result in the whole thing being tossed out as unenforceable, I think. Another case scenario would be that the remedies themselves are tossed out as pointless because WotC has to be the arbiter of what is "moral" in using their license (which is doubtless what they'd argue, at least in part).

I would like to turn your question around on you: What does 1.2 do that 1.0(a) does not to protect WotC from harm? Because more changes in 1.2 than the addition of that morality clause, so what is the purpose of the other changes that likewise remove and restrict freedom to use the SRD as granted in 1.0(a)?

Yeah. WotC here as well as the defenses I've read of it smells very much like "you don't want to give us final editorial control over what you write, able to take it down or leave it up at a whim? You must be a Bad Person who wants to publish Bad Things."

It's a very very common, and very very slimy tactic.

Indeed, and it's done because it both feels good and works. No, you're not the one doing something malign to a small and helpless victim; your victim is the horrible person who DESERVES what you're doing to him!

[Bohandas]

PF2e has stat adjustments for ancestry and I think Wizards has voluntarily removed that from their own game out of a good faith belief that they’re racist. I think there is good reason to expect they would use this clause if other people went against the standards that they followed

Definitely. That's exactly the kind of specious sanctimony they'd try to cloak their anti-competitive practices in.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I also want to repeat my stance here--

I don't care about protecting WotC from PR harm. That doesn't help me in the slightest. And in many ways it hurts me as a consumer. And my initial question was "how do I benefit from this new license." So far, I have seen exactly zero attempts to actually answer the question--lots of "well, it helps WotC" + handwaving answers, no direct or even plausibly indirect benefits to consumers. WotC has no intrinsic moral right to be protected from PR harm, and therefore no intrinsic right to definitely harm someone else in order to prevent PR harm to themselves from hypothetical third parties.

That, alone, is enough to oppose the entire thing. "I can do this thing that hurts you and benefits either me or no one" is not a position we should encourage companies to take. Nor is "I am going to measurably hurt you to slightly-and-insignificantly decrease the chances that someone else you have no connection to will make us have to make unpopular statements on Twitter." It's exactly monopolistic anti-consumer, anti-competitive behavior. And that's inherently bad.

[Bohandas]

Yeah. WotC here as well as the defenses I've read of it smells very much like "you don't want to give us final editorial control over what you write, able to take it down or leave it up at a whim? You must be a Bad Person who wants to publish Bad Things."

It's a very very common, and very very slimy tactic.

I'm almost surprised that they haven't tried to claim that the new OGL stops terrorism, cybercrime, and child abuse too; Bring all the tools of the professional fearmonger.

[MonochromeTiger]

How can you be racist against a fictional species?

Mostly through making a forced comparison to real world groups. It is possible for someone to slip in their biases against real people and hide it under a fantasy coat of paint, it's also possible for many people used to being discriminated against or looking for some kind of discrimination to make parallels that were never intended. In both cases it usually blows up when somebody actually points out the comparison, what's really interesting is when both cases are present and someone makes it intentionally then someone else makes a comparison that's completely different causing outrage against a genuine problematic situation for the wrong context.

[Bohandas]

Mostly through making a forced comparison to real world groups. It is possible for someone to slip in their biases against real people and hide it under a fantasy coat of paint, it's also possible for many people used to being discriminated against or looking for some kind of discrimination to make parallels that were never intended.

I'd wager money that over 95% of the time it's the latter (and therefore a headcanon rather than a true reading)


EDIT:
Like, to give an example from another pillar of nerd culture, suppose I read The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy and have the thought "hmm, '42' sounds a lot like '420', maybe Deep Thought lost track of the decimal point" that's a perfectly fine headcanon, but if I were to then go and confidently tell people HHGTTG is about weed that would be untrue, and potentially also libellous

[EggKookoo]

I proposed two amendments that I think address the "how it is wielded" concern, and I will also propose those in the survey. Beyond that I don't think there's anything I can add, we may have to agree to disagree.

I'm sorry to have missed them, I scanned back a bit in the thread but I didn't see anything. If they boil down to putting tighter verbiage in 1.2+ that limits what WotC can do, what's to prevent them from changing that verbiage? Meanwhile the ORC is being put in 3rd party's hands to guard against just that.

[warty goblin]

So a point that confuses me: part of the 5E rules are, in the current draft OGL, released under an actually genuinely for sure irrevocable perpetual CC license, right? These include, I believe, some spells and the Evoker wizard.

So if a person took those and made some really vile and racist crap, Wizards can't do anything, it doesn't touch the stuff under the limited license. Basically its the same position as if they released it 5 years ago under the original OGL.

But if the person stuck in, like, an enchanter wizard or something that's in the OGL but not CC rules then they can be nuked.

If my understanding is correct, this seems like the worst of both the very restrictive first draft OGL, and the original actually open OGL. I find it hard to believe that whatever damage an RPG can do occurs in a game with enchanter wizards, but not one with only evokers; that's that's really specific level of harm. But Wizards can't do anything about the second and is still as much on the PR hook for it as they are under the original OGL. Worse probably, because now rhey have to explain the weirdness of a complicated license instead of just saying "we abhore content X, this violates the spirit of openness and inclusiveness under which we released the open rules yadda yadda yadda". And because it uses the same core, it'll be obvious that the problematic material is still perfectly compatible with D&D.

It seems to me that at least the first license was consistent. Wizards wanted D&D to be their walled garden, you had to play by their rules to get in, and they were the unquestionable cops of that gardening could kick you out at any time. Now it's like half of it is a walled garden, so you can't just drop pants and take a crap in these parts. But those other parts right next door are a Free Toilet Zone? Even though we're right downwind of them?

If you're gonna police your walled garden, put up your walls and police. If you're gonna let people do whatever, do let them do that. I don't get what doing half of each accomplishes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So a point that confuses me: part of the 5E rules are, in the current draft OGL, released under an actually genuinely for sure irrevocable perpetual CC license, right? These include, I believe, some spells and the Evoker wizard.

No. No content is released. But some of the rules are. None of the classes, monsters, spells, or magic items are CC. There are questions as to whether the background and feat examples are released.

But as to the general rule system? Yeah.

[Snowbluff]

So a point that confuses me: part of the 5E rules are, in the current draft OGL, released under an actually genuinely for sure irrevocable perpetual CC license, right? These include, I believe, some spells and the Evoker wizard.

So if a person took those and made some really vile and racist crap, Wizards can't do anything, it doesn't touch the stuff under the limited license. Basically its the same position as if they released it 5 years ago under the original OGL.
...
If you're gonna police your walled garden, put up your walls and police. If you're gonna let people do whatever, do let them do that. I don't get what doing half of each accomplishes.

What about the CC content is actually subject to copyright is something I see people discuss a lot, and so it doesn't seem a settled issue. Basically, WotC is putting out what they might not be able to defend as theirs without a fight, and defending what they can more probably control as theirs with some stipulations.

I will note one of the other stipulations of OGL 1.2 is that you cannot claim WotC endorses or is associated with them. To me, it looks like they're putting up separation between themselves and 3PP legally, to avoid as much flak as they feasibly can.

As an aside, examples within the CC areas are not included, so said wizard may not be CC.

[Unoriginal]

Worse....for whom?

As of now, a Problematic Person can create stuff under OGL 1.0a, a tiktok-er can start a viral thread denouncing it and denouncing Wizards for, I don't know, "creating an environment welcoming to Problematic Persons", and WOTC PR department can't do anything except release a statement which will only make everyone mad. (HAlf of the culture war will be mad that it's a toothless statement, the other half will be mad at the statement.)

Once OGL 1.2 is in effect (assuming the current version or anything like it), if a PRoblematic PErson creates under OGL 1.0a, WOTC can credibly say "Not my circus, not my monkeys", and if that doesn't work, they can try to go after Problematic GAmes and see if the de-authorization of OGL 1.0a stands up in court. IF a PRoblematic PErson creates under OGL 1.2, Wizards can nuke PRoblematic Games from orbit.

They didn't need OGL 1.2 to credibly say "not my circus, not my monkeys" about the NuTSR event.

What is the explanation of that discrepancy, for you?

[Brookshw]

Sure; my point was not to advise anyone to try it. My point was that, given the nature of large numbers of people, SOMEBODY is going to try it.

Sure, I sort of used that part of the comment as the launch pad for the point as it was the most recent instance where someone brought it up, and wasn't really intending to address your greater point. Apologies, wasn't trying to single you out.

[Bohandas]

If you're gonna police your walled garden, put up your walls and police. If you're gonna let people do whatever, do let them do that. I don't get what doing half of each accomplishes.

I'm categorically opposed to walled gardens, so for me a non-functioning walled garden is definitely preferable to an effective one

[johnbragg]

They didn't need OGL 1.2 to credibly say "not my circus, not my monkeys" about the NuTSR event.

What is the explanation of that discrepancy, for you?

1. NuTSR didnt use the OGL at all. they just (apparently falsely) claimed that the TSR and Star Frontiers trademarks were abandoned.

2. WOTC sued NuTSR on those grounds.

WOTC didn't just issue a press release. they went to court and won.

Lamentations of the Flame Princess and Zak S might be a better example of "not my circus not my monkeys"

[Psyren]

I'm sorry to have missed them, I scanned back a bit in the thread but I didn't see anything. If they boil down to putting tighter verbiage in 1.2+ that limits what WotC can do, what's to prevent them from changing that verbiage? Meanwhile the ORC is being put in 3rd party's hands to guard against just that.

First response here

You're changing my example to suit your position. Stop that. Did Pathfinder have whatever offensive, harmful whatever you're objecting to? No. Waylocator should be assumed, in good faith argument, to be just a fork of 5.0 the way PF1 was a fork of 3.5.

If that's truly all you're doing then you have nothing to worry about whether that clause exists or not.

You (Psyren) asked what provisions of 1.2 could prevent a new "Pathfinder," not what could justify a "new Pathfinder" being shut down. I actually suspect there are more things in 1.2 that could prevent it, but I haven't poured over it enough to be sure. I know for certain that WotC's "morality clause" would let them shut it down with no reason other than, "Your Waylocator violates our standards of ethics and morality, you disgusting piece of filth." They don't have to justify it by identifying what it is, and even if they do, it doesn't have to be any better than insane troll logic.

Yet again I point back to-

First off, thanks for repeating the remedies you meant; it is very hard to parse back through a thread and figure out exactly which things somebody is referring to.

Secondly, though, no. It would not.

Oh good, you saw them.

What court? Who's making the decisions? No court, I wager, is going to want to try to define what is "moral" or not; courts are concerned with the law. The best case scenario would be that those remedies result in the whole thing being tossed out as unenforceable, I think. Another case scenario would be that the remedies themselves are tossed out as pointless because WotC has to be the arbiter of what is "moral" in using their license (which is doubtless what they'd argue, at least in part).

Then we may just be at an impasse, because I don't see any of these potential challenges as good enough reasons to not include the clause (with remedies.) Yes, it will be hard to argue and defend and may result in a win for the licensor. But at the end of the day you made the calculation that the license was needed to do whatever you wanted to do, so you're in the weaker negotiating position to begin with; if you don't think you need the license, don't use it and you won't have to worry about any clauses in it.

I would like to turn your question around on you: What does 1.2 do that 1.0(a) does not to protect WotC from harm? Because more changes in 1.2 than the addition of that morality clause, so what is the purpose of the other changes that likewise remove and restrict freedom to use the SRD as granted in 1.0(a)?

From harm would be the morality clause. Defining the license as only applying to TTRPGs and VTTs may not overtly harm them but it's still leaving money on the table from a videogame, AI, etc. licensee that they wouldn't otherwise be in a great position to negotiate, and therefore still reasonable in my book.

[Delicious Taffy]

Is it only me, or do the tangents about "Twitter mobs" and "sensitive people" just serve to distract from any actually useful discussion about this topic? Oh noes, some hypothetical person might hypothetically be hypobothered by some hypothetical other person for undisclosed (and likely hypothetical) reasons, aaah, so terrible, what a true problem this is?

I'm really more interested in what the hell this OGL thing does to help me, an actual real-life person who actually enjoys D&D the real tabletop game. So far, it seems like the answer is somewhere between "nada" and "zilch". Seems a lot more like it's just gonna make it easier for some jealous goon to punish me for posting pics of my OC or sharing the cool setting I came up with. Like, the question has been asked and the answers are being cloaked behind "I wish to vaguely condemn somebody who's not even real. My reasons are my own (but I assure you they're Very Good)."

[Bohandas]

I'm categorically opposed to walled gardens, so for me a non-functioning walled garden is definitely preferable to an effective one

Actually, I take this back, the illusion of a walled garden might actually be better than the clear lack of a walled garden, because it could potentially silence censorious voices without actually yielding anything to them

[Unoriginal]

1. NuTSR didnt use the OGL at all. they just (apparently falsely) claimed that the TSR and Star Frontiers trademarks were abandoned.

2. WOTC sued NuTSR on those grounds.

WOTC didn't just issue a press release. they went to court and won.

Lamentations of the Flame Princess and Zak S might be a better example of "not my circus not my monkeys"

So if NuTSR had used the OGL, WotC could not have gone to court?