Official OGL Discussion Thread

[PhoenixPhyre]

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)."

I've now asked that question in the second paragraph multiple times and gotten no real answer.

[Psyren]

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

I mean, you can try to go to court for anything. The real question is who would have prevailed and how long would it have taken.

I've now asked that question in the second paragraph multiple times and gotten no real answer.

I gave you (and Atranen) an answer to this, it just wasn't one you liked.

[Imbalance]

The survey is live.

[Unoriginal]

I mean, you can try to go to court for anything. The real question is who would have prevailed and how long would it have taken.

Who's the richer between WotC/Hasbro and NuTSR?

[Psyren]

Who's the richer between WotC/Hasbro and NuTSR?

1) The richer person doesn't always win in court.
2) Even when they do, winning in court is not always the most desirable outcome.

[ToranIronfinder]

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.

I would phrase it this way, when it comes to PR, if this is a concern to a corporation, you don't issue an open license in the first place. Of course that cat is out of the bag. Re morse about unforeseen consequences is not good grounds for renegging on a deal. I wish I hadn't sold my shares of GE and then bought it back at a nhigher cost and too near the top. that doesn't mean I have any justification for reneging on the prior deal I have made. That is essentially how I view the deauhtoirization of the OGL 1.0a, they made a deal, now they want to reneg in a way I consider dishonest.

Let's keep this away from content that isn't in an actual gaming products, though, again, this is in my wheelhouse, so I am biting my lips, but a gaming forum is not an appropriate discussion for metaethical debate, and I don't think we can discuss non-gaming comments without engaging in such a debate.

I would also point out this OGL doesn't seem to cover demfatory tweets, or other public facing statements WOTC might make in the process of revoking a license, since it appears to me the only thing the license protects is their right to issue a C&D for products they find objectionable, not for content not in those products, and it doesn't aeem to cover public statements about why a license was revoked. So outside of metaethics, it really isn't germane to the discussion at hand.That in fact was a defect that they at least been partially remedied from the prior draft, and I'll give them a little credit for that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I gave you (and Atranen) an answer to this, it just wasn't one you liked.

Your answer was "it doesn't, except possibly theoretically. It helps WotC."

Yeah, that's unsatisfactory. Because none of what you wrote actually helps the individual customer except at very attenuated, theoretical levels. And it would excuse monopolistic behavior in any environment.

I would phrase it this way, when it comes to PR, if this is a concern to a corporation, you don't issue an open license in the first place. Of course that cat is out of the bag. Re morse about unforeseen consequences is not good grounds for renegging on a deal. I wish I hadn't sold my shares of GE and then bought it back at a nhigher cost and too near the top. that doesn't mean I have any justification for reneging on the prior deal I have made. That is essentially how I view the deauhtoirization of the OGL 1.0a, they made a deal, now they want to reneg in a way I consider dishonest.

Let's keep this away from content that isn't in an actual gaming products, though, again, this is in my wheelhouse, so I am biting my lips, but a gaming forum is not an appropriate discussion for metaethical debate, and I don't think we can discuss non-gaming comments without engaging in such a debate.

I would also point out this OGL doesn't seem to cover demfatory tweets, or other public facing statements WOTC might make in the process of revoking a license, since it appears to me the only thing the license protects is their right to issue a C&D for products they find objectionable, not for content not in those products, and it doesn't aeem to cover public statements about why a license was revoked. So outside of metaethics, it really isn't germane to the discussion at hand.That in fact was a defect that they at least been partially remedied from the prior draft, and I'll give them a little credit for that.

I agree with this. They're trying to have their cake and eat it too--pretend to have an open license that anyone else can use...while not actually giving an open license that anyone else can use. And then force everyone else into this license.

If they'd have said "ok, OGL 1.2 is only for OneD&D materials and beyond", I'd have shrugged and said "ok, that's your choice. I think it's stupid and a bad license, but yeah. Whatever. Doesn't affect me." Trying to deauth the 1.0a license? That activated my Trap Card and made me invested.

[Delicious Taffy]

I gave you (and Atranen) an answer to this, it just wasn't one you liked.

Your "answers" have amounted to "It doesn't matter if you like it or not, the binary fact is that they're doing it, deal with it."

That's not actually an answer. It's barely even a response. If you're not going to engage with the actual questions, why bother sniping at people?

[Atranen]

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)."

I agree, any hypothetical case should be supported by real examples. There are real examples of the new OGL pushing out 3PP. There are not real examples of someone using the OGL, causing a firestorm, and having it blow back at WoTC.

There are real examples of some cRPGs, but again nothing that a D&D fan could really be upset about.

I gave you (and Atranen) an answer to this, it just wasn't one you liked.

I understand your position and we agree that it's a raw deal for a generic TTRPG fan. I don't understand your position that, despite this, it's a good deal for a 'D&D-only' fan. I don't think a big company making a cRPG based on the OGL is bad for D&D-only fans.

[Luccan]

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)."

To be fair, we're literally only allowed to be vague unless it's directly on topic and the mods had to create this specific thread to even allow discussion of the new OGL. So there's some talking past each other because we can't read minds, but we also can't clarify and say specific things as relates to real world topics beyond a certain point.

Frankly, the morality clause is only one issue of the new license and it has derailed the thread quite a bit.

However, I'm inclined to agree that nothing in the license really benefits me the player. The only thing it seems to do is potentially limit the list of third parties able to contribute to the space, while also potentially screwing over anyone who does do anything for D&D, with the new license still being revocable and based on the whims of corporate executives that don't care about the hobby

[MonochromeTiger]

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".

That's because, as far as I can tell, there isn't. If you're the average person just playing the game then odds are the only way this affects you personally is how any Third Party Publishers you might like interact with it. Unless you have something big enough that WotC actually considers it associated with something of theirs whether you, as an average player, pay attention to the OGL or not, is completely irrelevant to your ability to play the game.

This is affecting the business side of things more, generally the writers, publishers, and companies, and is driving many of them away from D&D which does affect you as the average player by making their content less available to you if you're using a D&D rule system. If you genuinely don't care about that then good news you're able to continue not caring but it will make people sad that you aren't supporting the Third Party Publishers and others who used the original OGL.

More specifically at the moment this is all potential effects if the OGL goes forward in its current state. It's not at the point of any of this really being beyond hypothetical yet and most of the outrage and moving away from D&D is because what they've put forward so far is either implying or stating things that those groups feel puts them at risk. If you're worried about how it affects you as a normal player technically the thing that affects you nowis the reaction and what has the potential to affect you later is dependent on if and how the OGL is further altered.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's because, as far as I can tell, there isn't. If you're the average person just playing the game then odds are the only way this affects you personally is how any Third Party Publishers you might like interact with it. Unless you have something big enough that WotC actually considers it associated with something of theirs whether you, as an average player, pay attention to the OGL or not, is completely irrelevant to your ability to play the game.

This is affecting the business side of things more, generally the writers, publishers, and companies, and is driving many of them away from D&D which does affect you as the average player by making their content less available to you if you're using a D&D rule system. If you genuinely don't care about that then good news you're able to continue not caring but it will make people sad that you aren't supporting the Third Party Publishers and others who used the original OGL.

More specifically at the moment this is all potential effects if the OGL goes forward in its current state. It's not at the point of any of this really being beyond hypothetical yet and most of the outrage and moving away from D&D is because what they've put forward so far is either implying or stating things that those groups feel puts them at risk. If you're worried about how it affects you as a normal player technically the thing that affects you nowis the reaction and what has the potential to affect you later is dependent on if and how the OGL is further altered.

It also affects people who
* want VTTs with animation features
* want to publish and discuss homebrew in formats other than PDF
* want a vibrant D&D ecosystem

All entirely negatively, FYI.

[MonochromeTiger]

It also affects people who
* want VTTs with animation features
* want to publish and discuss homebrew in formats other than PDF
* want a vibrant D&D ecosystem

All entirely negatively, FYI.

Apologies that part slipped my mind after all the moral clause discussion.

[Psyren]

Your answer was "it doesn't, except possibly theoretically. It helps WotC."

Yeah, that's unsatisfactory.

Sure, but it was a real answer - possibly even the most correct real answer.

I agree with this. They're trying to have their cake and eat it too--pretend to have an open license that anyone else can use...while not actually giving an open license that anyone else can use. And then force everyone else into this license.

I'm willing to wager that MOST people will be able to use this license just fine. And the ones who truly can't, will have CC instead or ORC to look forward to.

I understand your position and we agree that it's a raw deal for a generic TTRPG fan. I don't understand your position that, despite this, it's a good deal for a 'D&D-only' fan. I don't think a big company making a cRPG based on the OGL is bad for D&D-only fans.

The one thing most likely to actually kill D&D is its corporate handlers putting it on a shelf indefinitely, or selling it off in bits and pieces. This license combats that directly.

[Snowbluff]

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)."

I agree with your assessment. These moves (RE: OGL, and I will include CC) won't affect regular players. It was arguable before if a setting not necessarily attached to 5e and without mechanics was needed with OGL before anyway.

I am also of the opinion that there is a lot of hyperbole. I've recently seen a lot of misinformation put out by a major influencer, which was backed up by twitter/reddit/etc posts support it (some even after said misinformation of it being debunked, supporting it despite it just being wrong). I will not name names, and I will remind people not to harass anyone over this. I don't think it reflects well on the community and leads to a lot of burn out over the topics, and pushes out the core issues.

I also don't believe the VVT policy necessarily stops all animations on all VTT. Just ones designed for WotC property/product. Generic ones will probably be fine. Just like how when the 1.1 came out, generic VTT were still probably fine.

[Ashtagon]

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

I'm pretty sure that if they had used the OGL, WotC court still have sued and won. The issue WotC had with them was one of trademark violation, use of which was never granted by any OGL.

A better example of "3PP makes something that WotC objects to" is the Book of E** Fantasy. Cleverer people than me can tell that story and how it panned out. But suffice it to say, it still used the 1.0a OGL at the end of it, but could no longer make use of certain marketing gimmicks that WotC was at the time making available to 3PPs under a separate agreement.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sure, but it was a real answer - possibly even the most correct real answer.

Except you phrased it as "it'll totally help you". An honest "yeah, it doesn't" would be actually useful. And be the answer I fully expect. As long as we're aligned on "it doesn't help anyone outside of WotC", that's fine however.

I'm willing to wager that MOST people will be able to use this license just fine. And the ones who can't, will have CC instead or ORC to look forward to.

I'm philosophically opposed to it on a lot of levels. Sure, most people won't get burned. But also...most people wouldn't get burned if they just outright pirated the material and ignored copyright entirely. So that's not much of a consolation prize.

[Psyren]

Except you phrased it as "it'll totally help you". An honest "yeah, it doesn't" would be actually useful. And be the answer I fully expect. As long as we're aligned on "it doesn't help anyone outside of WotC", that's fine however.

I said "if D&D isn't your priority, then it doesn't." I'm not seeing the difference between that and your more useful phrasing, but I'm willing to move on.

I'm philosophically opposed to it on a lot of levels. Sure, most people won't get burned. But also...most people wouldn't get burned if they just outright pirated the material and ignored copyright entirely. So that's not much of a consolation prize.

I don't think that would pan out the way you expect.

[Unoriginal]

Just in case anyone needs more evidence as to why having WotC has the one arbiter of what content is or isn't acceptable would be terrible for the hobby, we have this one.

1) The richer person doesn't always win in court.
2) Even when they do, winning in court is not always the most desirable outcome.

Indeed. The most desirable outcome is to not have to go to court.

Going to court costs a lot of money and time, after all.

The question is, who can afford to spend that money and time?

[Delicious Taffy]

That's because, as far as I can tell, there isn't. If you're the average person just playing the game then odds are the only way this affects you personally is how any Third Party Publishers you might like interact with it. Unless you have something big enough that WotC actually considers it associated with something of theirs whether you, as an average player, pay attention to the OGL or not, is completely irrelevant to your ability to play the game.

This is good to know, because I wasn't entirely clear on that.

but it will make people sad that you aren't supporting the Third Party Publishers and others who used the original OGL.

Somehow I doubt I make a big enough splash in the third-party scene to actually make anyone sad, but I mostly get your point.

---

To be fair, we're literally only allowed to be vague unless it's directly on topic and the mods had to create this specific thread to even allow discussion of the new OGL. So there's some talking past each other because we can't read minds, but we also can't clarify and say specific things as relates to real world topics beyond a certain point.

Let's say, for the sake of clarity, that raw legal/political/moral whatevers are the furthest thing from my mind at this moment in time. Wizards could be trying to sue the moon for all I care.

nothing in the license really benefits me the player. The only thing it seems to do is potentially limit the list of third parties able to contribute to the space, while also potentially screwing over anyone who does do anything for D&D, with the new license still being revocable and based on the whims of corporate executives that don't care about the hobby

This is a very succinct, direct answer and I'm more or less satisfied to know I'm at least in the ballpark of understanding the player-facing side of this headache of a document.

It also affects people who
* want VTTs with animation features
* want to publish and discuss homebrew in formats other than PDF
* want a vibrant D&D ecosystem

All entirely negatively, FYI.

Those all sound like pretty bad things if you're not specifically a WotC money collector.

I'm gathering from all of this that the correct answer of how this benefits players is "It doesn't, and any suggestions to the contrary is wishful thinking at best." Which... Well, it's disappointing and messes with tentative plans I had with my own homebrews, but I guess I can always file off all the serial numbers and delete all the crunch. I mentioned it briefly a few pages back, but it does kinda suck to see it laid out so cleanly.

[ToranIronfinder]

I said "if D&D isn't your priority, then it doesn't." I'm not seeing the difference between that and your more useful phrasing, but I'm willing to move on.

The real problem is my concern that this is a pretext to start suing other games out of existence, see my point on the CC, it seems weird that classes, races, monsters, and deities which are long term archtypes aren't included, or that the 3.5 SRD doesn't have similar provisions. I think it likely or possible that they have an overly broad definition of "similarity." See above discussion about new publications under PF1. As the OGL changed the ecosystem, there are fair play issues beyond whether one likes or dislikes DnD.

Afterall, DnD fans probably would not be in favor of someone coming after DnD and stating they can no longer use mindflayers because they are too similar to Lovecraft's creations. You really haven't answered that problem or that point, and it might clarify that aspect of this discussion if you made a more explicit statement on the wider ramifications that this has due to the role the OGL currently plays in the industry.

[Psyren]

Indeed. The most desirable outcome is to not have to go to court.

Going to court costs a lot of money and time, after all.

Exactly.

The question is, who can afford to spend that money and time?

You're assuming NuTSR's goal was to win. Just getting them into a protracted legal battle at all might have been a win in their eyes, if they were trolling / going for shock value.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Submitted my feedback. High scores for comprehension (most of the place), low scores for how much I liked it.

[Snowbluff]

I'm gonna wait a few days to see if any new and cogent concerns surface, like the point about 3rd edition content.

[Lemmy]

It also affects people who
* want VTTs with animation features
* want to publish and discuss homebrew in formats other than PDF
* want a vibrant D&D ecosystem

All entirely negatively, FYI.

Yeah... The VTT part in particular makes it extremely clear that this just a poorly disguised attempt at anti-competitive practices to sabotage possible competitors to their upcoming VTT.

The OGL 1.2 is only slightly less absurd than its 1.1 version.

[Psyren]

I'm gonna wait a few days to see if any new and cogent concerns surface, like the point about 3rd edition content.

Ditto, I'll wait until LegalEagle and the like weigh in (if they do.)

[Ashtagon]

You're assuming NuTSR's goal was to win. Just getting them into a protracted legal battle at all might have been a win in their eyes, if they were trolling / going for shock value.

I believe their goal was a gambit similar to The Producers. They were presenting themselves as the champion of old-school grognards who were also vehemently anti-woke. Then when the anticipated court case came along, they would solicit donations to help fund their legal defence, and then fold without a fight before any significant legal expenses had been racked up. This might also be compounded with pre-orders for vapourware games.

[Snowbluff]

I believe their goal was a gambit similar to The Producers. They were presenting themselves as the champion of old-school grognards who were also vehemently anti-woke. Then when the anticipated court case came along, they would solicit donations to help fund their legal defence, and then fold without a fight before any significant legal expenses had been racked up. This might also be compounded with pre-orders for vapourware games.

You know, given how some unnamed scams that I've seen publicly that are similar to this, this is probably not unlikely.

[Unoriginal]

Exactly.



You're assuming NuTSR's goal was to win. Just getting them into a protracted legal battle at all might have been a win in their eyes, if they were trolling / going for shock value.

So do we agree that companies engineering protracted legal battles against other companies in order to benefit from the conflict is a bad thing?

[ToranIronfinder]

So do we agree that companies engineering protracted legal battles against other companies in order to benefit from the conflict is a bad thing?

Yes, I would agree with that. You compete by making a better product, not by means of backroom deals or trying to use market weight to tilt things in your favor to prevent becoming obsolete.

Please note, not weighing in on NuTSR, I've not researched it and I'm not going off of third hand information, so I M explicitly not weighing in on that issue. Just noting a point of principle.