Official OGL Discussion Thread

[PhoenixPhyre]

Latest tweet thread from D&D Beyond: https://twitter.com/DnDBeyond/status...16722893017089

Text of thread (all official statements):

We want to thank the community for continuing to share their OGL 1.2 feedback with us. Already more than 10,000 of you have responded to the survey, which will close on February 3. Take the survey here: [Link to Survey] 🧵

So far, survey responses have made it clear that this draft of OGL 1.2 hasn't hit the mark for our community. Please continue to share your thoughts.

Thanks to direct feedback from you and our virtual tabletop partners it's also clear the draft VTT policy missed the mark. Animations were clearly the wrong focus. We'll do better next round.

We will continue to keep an article updated with any new details posted here or elsewhere on the OGL. You can read it here: [Link to latest DnD Beyond Article about 1.2]

[Psyren]

I'm glad to hear that they're refocusing the VTT policy, that was a big part of my feedback. I quoted a good chunk of Foundry's statement on that very point.

[Mutazoia]

I don't know. I don't *think* they're just looking at a new generation edition of Neverwinter Nights or Baldurs Gate or D&D Online. They're talking a lot about the line between VTTs and video games, which tells me that their next project is a video game that incorporates VTT elements. I have no idea how.

From everything I've gathered, I believe WOTC/Hasbro are planning on doing the exact opposite: Creating a VTT with video game elements. Every exec running the show for OneD&D has come from a video game background and they are quite proud to flex that fact at the drop of a hat.

This leads me to believe that WOTC/Hasbro intends to attempt to make OneD&D a primarily online/digital game with physical books available for an increased price as "collectors editions." The majority of the resources for the game will be on their website and be designed to function best when played with their proprietary VTT. Given that the WOTC CEO has flat-out stated that she wants to monetize D&D just like a video game, this is pretty much their only option if they are serious about adding microtransactions to the game.

This would also give them an open door to force any changes to the "OGL" onto players by forcing them to agree to a heavily restrictive game license if they want to create an account on WOTCs VTT/OneD&D page. This would also force third-party content creators to sign onto a new game license if they wanted to continue (or start to) create things for D&D, as they would have to agree to any game license terms WOTC could sneak into the EULA during account creation.

[Atranen]

Latest tweet thread from D&D Beyond: https://twitter.com/DnDBeyond/status...16722893017089

Text of thread (all official statements):

Glad to hear it; I've been impressed with at least their willingness to admit they were wrong and say they are going to change. They'll have to actually change to prove anything. The right thing to do is to keep the pressure on. I'd love for them to end up with an acceptable version so I don't need to go elsewhere.

[Mechalich]

From everything I've gathered, I believe WOTC/Hasbro are planning on doing the exact opposite: Creating a VTT with video game elements. Every exec running the show for OneD&D has come from a video game background and they are quite proud to flex that fact at the drop of a hat.

This leads me to believe that WOTC/Hasbro intends to attempt to make OneD&D a primarily online/digital game with physical books available for an increased price as "collectors editions." The majority of the resources for the game will be on their website and be designed to function best when played with their proprietary VTT. Given that the WOTC CEO has flat-out stated that she wants to monetize D&D just like a video game, this is pretty much their only option if they are serious about adding microtransactions to the game.

This would also give them an open door to force any changes to the "OGL" onto players by forcing them to agree to a heavily restrictive game license if they want to create an account on WOTCs VTT/OneD&D page. This would also force third-party content creators to sign onto a new game license if they wanted to continue (or start to) create things for D&D, as they would have to agree to any game license terms WOTC could sneak into the EULA during account creation.

That makes a great deal of sense. Based on my understanding of the economics, if even a small fraction of the D&D player base - many of whom purchase 1-2 books total over the life of an edition - could be converted to paying VTT subscribes they would come out way ahead. At the same time, the various attempts to kill/restrict the OGL 1.0a can be seen as intended to prevent a PF-style variant of 5e from simply filling the space WotC will vacate by the move to a primarily VTT-based product. That's logical, from a purely business-based perspective.

At the same time, I feel like it massively misreads the player base across the hobby. While there are a large number of D&D-only TTRPG players, few of these are such because of a specific loyalty to D&D. Rather they simply only want to take the time and energy to learn only one system and they gravitate to the most abundant system simply because that provides the greatest number of opportunities to play. The same thing happens with MtG - it is the most popular collectible card game because it is the most popular collectible card game. If D&D exits the space voluntarily, everyone will gravitate to some other game. In the late 1990s, the last time this happened, that game was VtM even though it was nothing like D&D. I'd submit that as evidence that even if WotC successful torpedoed the OGL 1.0a, which is highly dubious, it would only induce migration to some other game, not to a VTT.

[johnbragg]

So things I think we've learned (I've learned) over the lifetime of the thread.

1. OGL 1.0a isn't a terribly big advantage for a competitor to D&D Digital. If the FAANG companies throw money at a VTT/CRPG/MMORPG hybrid, the OGL doesn't give them anything they didn't already have or couldn't easily get.

2. WOTC just signaled that they're retreating on the VTT limitations.
2a. In OGL 1.2, WOTC tossed the royalties provisions and the license-back provisions over the side of the boat.

So what is WOTC's core motivation for deauthorizing 1.0a? Which they seem to be firmly committed to.

I think it comes down to the morality clause. Most of the world doesn't know anything about Lamentations of the Flame Princess, for example. But if the Tiktok mobs noticed, WOTC public relations would feel the pressure to Do Something. And under OGL 1.0a, they can't. (I checked, LOTFP does use OGL 1.0a.)

But, you might say, LOTFP isn't going to sign on to OGL 1.2, so Wizards STILL can't do anything. But PR wise, they can point to the new OGL policy and say "we DID something, we did all we could so. It will never happen again, shrug."

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Mutazoia
This leads me to believe that WOTC/Hasbro intends to attempt to make OneD&D a primarily online/digital game with physical books available for an increased price as "collectors editions."

This was the gist of the latest video that was linked a couple of pages ago.

Originally Posted by Atranen
Glad to hear it; I've been impressed with at least their willingness to admit they were wrong and say they are going to change.

They ran face-first into a wall of very loud opposition, so they had to at least acknowledge that. I’m not sure they’ve admitted their underlying goals were wrong, just the process for communicating them.

Originally Posted by Atranen
The right thing to do is to keep the pressure on. I'd love for them to end up with an acceptable version so I don't need to go elsewhere.

The real issue for most people is 1.0 deauth, and there’s no indication they’re changing their stance on that, nor ever will. This latest statement mentions animations, but that was an odd fixation to begin with and reversing on this point is trivial for them.

Show me a new version that walks back the 1.0 deauth and I’ll be convinced they’re taking base concerns to heart. Until then, they’re just “listening” in some vaguely noncommittal, impersonally corporate sense.

Also worth noting that there’s a public OGL survey in that Twitter link which promises what WotC never has—a survey whose responses will be entirely public and transparent. WotC’s failure to do the same is one more garish red flag that they’re not listening, not caring, and not planning to change.

[EggKookoo]

The real issue for most people is 1.0 deauth, and there’s no indication they’re changing their stance on that, nor ever will.

The deauth issue is huge. Back when open software licenses were the new hotness, more than a few lawsuits resulted from companies trying what WotC is doing right now -- releasing open code, and then when it got embedded in enough systems, trying to revoke it so they could demand royalties. This approach eventually got severely stomped on by courts, and there's loads of precedence that once you have any kind of open license, it's irrevocable unless the license has a specific revocability clause built into up front. I remember the discussions about it at the time, debating if it meant the end of open source. But in the end of course it wasn't. It was the end of big companies trying to cheat (at least in that respect).

This has implications for what WotC's doing that I can't get into here as it would fall under legal speculation. You can do your own research there.

[Raven777]

I think it comes down to the morality clause. Most of the world doesn't know anything about Lamentations of the Flame Princess, for example. But if the Tiktok mobs noticed, WOTC public relations would feel the pressure to Do Something. And under OGL 1.0a, they can't. (I checked, LOTFP does use OGL 1.0a.)

I don't think the TikTok mob cares that much, otherwise they'd routinely get busy going after much bigger and already mainstream targets like Warhammer 40k.

[Keltest]

I don't think the TikTok mob cares that much, otherwise they'd routinely get busy going after much bigger and already mainstream targets like Warhammer 40k.

40k is so over the top by design I dont think its possible to unironically go after it for anything without looking like you just fell for the joke.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by EggKookoo
The deauth issue is huge.

Yeah. They’ve touched on it, but they’re a long way from admitting it’s the wrong approach, much less promising to reverse their plans for it.

They’re making a show of “listening” with the survey—a survey whose results we can’t see, and which they can spin any way they like—and by giving ground on a few minor points. But 1.0 deauth itself is still full steam and no regrets.

Originally Posted by Atranen
The right thing to do is to keep the pressure on.

But without something equivalent to the recent spike in cancellations, there’s no other mechanism for directly getting their attention in a meaningful way. Their survey is a trap that plays into their hands; it lets them pretend they’re responding while never actually addressing the key issues.

Getting them in the same room with players and 3PP creators would be a start, because that would put faces on the player base and 3PP community, which isn’t something the key corporate figures have had much exposure to. Even offering to meet and discuss these issues in person—in a respectful, professional atmosphere—would put a modicum of real-world pressure on them. But right now there’s nothing.

[Tanarii]

I don't think the TikTok mob cares that much, otherwise they'd routinely get busy going after much bigger and already mainstream targets like Warhammer 40k.

D&D Orcs and Drow and Vistani and Hadozee were already an internet issue since April 2020. That's a super low bar for offense, low enough that Blizzard / World of Warcraft, which has far more egregious Orcs and Trolls and Tauren, could easily be the target. With a bar that low, it's unsurprising that WotC would be concerned about reactions to their own product.

What's not acceptable is trying to blow up the entire TTRPG open license club, to hold moral censorship over anyone's product but their own. If other folks in the club don't want to censor their own products due to internet issues, that's their choice.

[johnbragg]

I don't think the TikTok mob cares that much, otherwise they'd routinely get busy going after much bigger and already mainstream targets like Warhammer 40k.

1. I don't think the Tiktok mob is especially predictable or systematic.
2. I don't think Warhammer 40K is as mainstream as you think. No cartoons, no movies, much smaller player base, no Satanic PAnic. D&D has a big footprint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeo...opular_culture

[Rynjin]

Yeah, this is where big faces in other industries would have stepped up by now to arrange interviews with somebody at Wizards to discuss the matter.

Even the games industry (which has a well-documented lack of journalistic tradition) has well-meaning public figures like Jim Sterling who have in the past tried to really get in there and have a chat with different figures in the industry.

I'm surprised the Matt Colvilles and Treantmonks (big gap in subs there, I know; they'r elike the only two 5e creators I know of by name) of the community haven't tried to arrange some kind of roundtable. The only big "super creators" are in Wizards' pocket, but there are enough moderately sized guys to make a difference if they wanted to.

[Psyren]

1. OGL 1.0a isn't a terribly big advantage for a competitor to D&D Digital. If the FAANG companies throw money at a VTT/CRPG/MMORPG hybrid, the OGL doesn't give them anything they didn't already have or couldn't easily get.

It's true that lack of OGL coverage for video games wouldn't make it any more difficult for FAANG to enter the space. But there's a massive amount of daylight between mom-and-pop publisher and FAANG. Hell, the only AAA game publisher in FAANG itself really is Amazon - and maybe Apple? - while all the others are outside of it. There's no reason to make life any easier for them.

2. WOTC just signaled that they're retreating on the VTT limitations.

Well, yes and no. They're retreating on animations being the key differentiator. That to me signals that they still want some kind of line between VTT and video game, and they're going to keep trying to find one that works. I think their best bet here is to work with VTTs like Foundry directly on crafting the policy, and in the progress open the door to granting Foundry a custom license.

So what is WOTC's core motivation for deauthorizing 1.0a? Which they seem to be firmly committed to.

I think it comes down to the morality clause. Most of the world doesn't know anything about Lamentations of the Flame Princess, for example. But if the Tiktok mobs noticed, WOTC public relations would feel the pressure to Do Something. And under OGL 1.0a, they can't. (I checked, LOTFP does use OGL 1.0a.)

I definitely think the morality clause is the other major factor. And thanks for the pertinent example.

What's not acceptable is trying to blow up the entire TTRPG open license club, to hold moral censorship over anyone's product but their own.

They hold themselves accountable too, it's just that the correction gets far less fanfare than the crime. Mistakes like Hadozee shouldn't happen in the first place, but the next best thing is fixing them as fast as possible.

[EggKookoo]

But without something equivalent to the recent spike in cancellations, there’s no other mechanism for directly getting their attention in a meaningful way. Their survey is a trap that plays into their hands; it lets them pretend they’re responding while never actually addressing the key issues.

I think people getting educated on the history of open licenses and legal precedent will help. Again, we can't talk about the details here, but WotC is on very thin ice with this. Heck, DnDBeyond itself almost certainly uses open source code that would be at risk if some open source precedents were reversed.

IMO, D&D's uptick in use is in no small way due to how DnDB makes playing the game so much more convenient for most people. Some folks like its simplicity in comparison to something like Pathfinder, but if there was as slick a tool for PF most of that complexity would get smoothed over. We need a good equivalent.

[Psyren]

I don't think the TikTok mob cares that much, otherwise they'd routinely get busy going after much bigger and already mainstream targets like Warhammer 40k.

40k is so over the top by design I dont think its possible to unironically go after it for anything without looking like you just fell for the joke.

It's also just built on fundamentally different assumptions. D&D is trying to be the Disney of the tabletop world, presenting not just a world but also a game where diversity and friendship are the key to victory. Thus walking their talk is important both within and around the game system. From what I know of Warhammer, it... isn't that.

[Saintheart]

So things I think we've learned (I've learned) over the lifetime of the thread.

1. OGL 1.0a isn't a terribly big advantage for a competitor to D&D Digital. If the FAANG companies throw money at a VTT/CRPG/MMORPG hybrid, the OGL doesn't give them anything they didn't already have or couldn't easily get.

2. WOTC just signaled that they're retreating on the VTT limitations.
2a. In OGL 1.2, WOTC tossed the royalties provisions and the license-back provisions over the side of the boat.

So what is WOTC's core motivation for deauthorizing 1.0a? Which they seem to be firmly committed to.

I think it comes down to the morality clause. Most of the world doesn't know anything about Lamentations of the Flame Princess, for example. But if the Tiktok mobs noticed, WOTC public relations would feel the pressure to Do Something. And under OGL 1.0a, they can't. (I checked, LOTFP does use OGL 1.0a.)

But, you might say, LOTFP isn't going to sign on to OGL 1.2, so Wizards STILL can't do anything. But PR wise, they can point to the new OGL policy and say "we DID something, we did all we could so. It will never happen again, shrug."

The thing is, and I know I keep coming back to this, but OGL 1.0a (or 1.0 at least) has already had at least a couple of How Dare You's from the public before on Current Year topics: the Book of Erotic Fantasy. Thought up by Anthony Valterra, one of D&D's own brand managers while he was still with WOTC, was to be published under the d20 trademark, WOTC altered the licence to include a prescription that products with the d20 trademark had to meet a 'community decency' standard. Valterra is on record in old ENworld threads as trying to fight the changes to the trademark licence, but as history shows, he failed. WOTC revoked the publisher's right to use the d20 trademark ... and BoEF got published under the OGL 1.0a about 4-5 months later, where WOTC couldn't - and didn't - do anything about it. And the book disappeared for its 'ick' factor and probably the bad publicity.

There was no outcry then to revoke the OGL 1.0, and indeed WOTC altering the trademark so it could be revoked without notice - as happened in the case of the BoEF - was what caused most 3PP to abandon using the trademark at all, for exactly the same reasons as we're seeing now: the uncertainty of having a trademark owner hanging the Sword of Damocles over your book supply.

And here's the thing, BoEF catches a lot of the incoming fire for immature sourcebooks on one's preference for concavities or convexities, but it's hardly even the only one. I don't recommend using a public computer to Google up Nymphology: Blue Magic from Mongoose Publishing or the really squicky Book of Unlawful Carnal Knowledge. Both were also OGL products too. Been around for literally 20 years, no sign of torches and pitchforks yet.

Hence my cynicism over the reasons for OGL deauthorisation and the no-saving-throw morality clause. In my personal view, the morality of their products is not what the powers that be are trying to secure with that clause.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Rynjin
I'm surprised the Matt Colvilles and Treantmonks (big gap in subs there, I know; they'r elike the only two 5e creators I know of by name) of the community haven't tried to arrange some kind of roundtable. The only big "super creators" are in Wizards' pocket, but there are enough moderately sized guys to make a difference if they wanted to.

I can’t speculate about any particular individual, but I have a feeling that some of these game personalities (if you can call it that) would prefer to post a string of videos and drive traffic to their channels rather than try to step up and outside their comfort zone. It’s one thing to talk to a camera in a home studio, quite another to step up and interact directly.

That would be real leadership, but so far I haven't seen any. Monetized channels are a strong incentive to talk without really acting.

Originally Posted by EggKookoo
I think people getting educated on the history of open licenses and legal precedent will help.

Unfortunately that in itself won’t prod WotC to do anything different than what they’re doing now, which is pretending to listen and thundering right along.

Someone needs to call out WotC directly, by organizing a roundtable and inviting them to participate. That’s a real-world action which is concrete and reportable, to the point that it might be covered as a follow-up to the tiny blip of media coverage that the cancellations prompted. That's pressure WotC will notice.

.

[Psyren]

And the book disappeared for its 'ick' factor and probably the bad publicity.

3.5e's prominence outside the tabletop world is nowhere near what 5e's is, especially with their mainstream transmedia strategy taking shape. WotC simply wishing on a star that potentially brand-damaging books fade into obscurity on their own would be utterly irresponsible.

[johnbragg]

D&D Orcs and Drow and Vistani and Hadozee were already an internet issue since April 2020. That's a super low bar for offense, low enough that Blizzard / World of Warcraft, which has far more egregious Orcs and Trolls and Tauren, could easily be the target. With a bar that low, it's unsurprising that WotC would be concerned about reactions to their own product.

What's not acceptable is trying to blow up the entire TTRPG open license club, which is not theirs to do with as they please, hold moral censorship over anyone's product but their own. If other folks in the club don't want to censor their own products due to internet issues, that's their choice.

I think you deleted that part, but it's important, because that's where WOTC disagrees with us. If someone puts out a d20 version of FATAL using WOTC's SRD for classes and races and spells and feats, it's very easy to imagine WOTC winning a case based on "product confusion" or whatever the legalese is. It's less of a slam dunk for stuff like "Edgelord Studios' orcs are TOO MUCH like the racist noble-savages myth or the racist savage-savages myth," but WOTC has the money to have the lawyers to make Edgelord Studios bleed, which is all they really need to take the "SJW" heat off of WOTC.

[Saintheart]

3.5e's prominence outside the tabletop world is nowhere near what 5e's is, especially with their mainstream transmedia strategy taking shape.

Yeah, they also had one of those strategies around third edition as well. Even had a movie called Dungeons and Dragons if I remember right.

[Segev]

Does anybody else think a "deauth" sounds enough like a "gauth" that it should be a beholder-kin?

40k is so over the top by design I dont think its possible to unironically go after it for anything without looking like you just fell for the joke.

I assure you, the people who raise these objections use outrage to insist that anybody who dares point out that they're falling for a joke is "part of the problem." If WH40k responded differently than D&D to it, it's only because of the choices of those who own them, NOT a result of the fandoms reacting differently or having different expectations. Those outraged would convince you that they're as big a part of WH40k as they have D&D. However convinced you are.

It's also just built on fundamentally different assumptions. D&D is trying to be the Disney of the tabletop world, presenting not just a world but also a game where diversity and friendship are the key to victory. Thus walking their talk is important both within and around the game system. From what I know of Warhammer, it... isn't that.

This is like if Disney had, to justify their classic fairy tale adaptations, released an open license on them, and now was trying to revoke that license and claim that no future products using any fairy tale elements they had in their classics may be made without a much more draconian new license from Disney. You want to make a Cinderella story? You MUST comply with Disney's ever-shifting "morality" and with their whims and demands, and they can force you to scrap your entire movie days before release, or to cancel your show mid-season, if they deem your story "offensive."

Heavens, yes, studios making spin-offs from Disney franchises using more recognizable iconic images of the characters and being able to say they're semi-canon would benefit! But once that genie is out of the bottle, cramming it back in requires sucking up so much of Cinderella's story that Disney would essentially be claiming rights to the fairy tale itself. Sure, suuuurrre, they can say "but the new one isn't changing much, unless you're Big Business," but with Disney setting itself up to require that all fairy tale products meet Disney's standards of morality and inoffensiveness.... standards which might include, "Wait, your new video game about an abused orphan cleaning house while being denied his special destiny is making big bucks? Harry Potter has the license revoked, and you couldn't have printed it without our license so we're suing if you did!"

Ridiculous? Sure. So is this whole debacle.

[Saintheart]

Does anybody else think a "deauth" sounds enough like a "gauth" that it should be a beholder-kin?.

I thought it sounded like 'death' with an extra 'u'.

:D

[johnbragg]

It's true that lack of OGL coverage for video games wouldn't make it any more difficult for FAANG to enter the space. But there's a massive amount of daylight between mom-and-pop publisher and FAANG. Hell, the only AAA game publisher in FAANG itself really is Amazon - and maybe Apple? - while all the others are outside of it. There's no reason to make life any easier for them.

Mea Culpa, I forgot that Microsoft / Activision / Blizzard wasn't in the FAANG category when that was the current acronym. And Netflix is no longer anywhere near the trillion dollar club.

Well, yes and no. They're retreating on animations being the key differentiator. That to me signals that they still want some kind of line between VTT and video game, and they're going to keep trying to find one that works. I think their best bet here is to work with VTTs like Foundry directly on crafting the policy, and in the progress open the door to granting Foundry a custom license.

Very possible. We don't have the language of any new VTT policy yet. They might work with Foundry and Roll20 and the other incumbents, they might try to hamstring and destroy them.

The thing is, and I know I keep coming back to this, but OGL 1.0a (or 1.0 at least) has already had at least a couple of How Dare You's from the public before on Current Year topics: the Book of Erotic Fantasy. Thought up by Anthony Valterra, one of D&D's own brand managers while he was still with WOTC, was to be published under the d20 trademark, WOTC altered the licence to include a prescription that products with the d20 trademark had to meet a 'community decency' standard. Valterra is on record in old ENworld threads as trying to fight the changes to the trademark licence, but as history shows, he failed. WOTC revoked the publisher's right to use the d20 trademark ... and BoEF got published under the OGL 1.0a about 4-5 months later, where WOTC couldn't - and didn't - do anything about it. And the book disappeared for its 'ick' factor and probably the bad publicity.

1. It is much easier to go viral in 2023 than in 2003.
2. When there's a viral cancellation storm, the corporate PR imperative is to DO SOMETHING. WOTC *did something* about BOEF -- they made changes to the d20 license, and they rolled out 3.5.

And here's the thing, BoEF catches a lot of the incoming fire for immature sourcebooks on one's preference for concavities or convexities, but it's hardly even the only one. I don't recommend using a public computer to Google up Nymphology: Blue Magic from Mongoose Publishing or the really squicky Book of Unlawful Carnal Knowledge. Both were also OGL products too. Been around for literally 20 years, no sign of torches and pitchforks yet.

I'd guess that has a lot to do with the fact that nobody noticed those books existing.

Hence my cynicism over the reasons for OGL deauthorisation and the no-saving-throw morality clause. In my personal view, the morality of their products is not what the powers that be are trying to secure with that clause.

My cynicism agrees. But the PR department *does* sincerely want a blueprint to DO SOMETHING!! in the entirely forseeable event that a 3rd party product is Declared Problematic.

3.5e's prominence outside the tabletop world is nowhere near what 5e's is, especially with their mainstream transmedia strategy taking shape. WotC simply wishing on a star that potentially brand-damaging books fade into obscurity on their own would be utterly irresponsible.

Agreed, mostly. 2023 is not 2003.

Mostly because your statement is from a neutral perspective, and I don't know that I support that. But I do know that if I were drawing a salary in WOTC / Hasbro Legal and PR Department, I'd share that view as part of my job.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

3.5e's prominence outside the tabletop world is nowhere near what 5e's is, especially with their mainstream transmedia strategy taking shape. WotC simply wishing on a star that potentially brand-damaging books fade into obscurity on their own would be utterly irresponsible.

If the content of a book is truly brand damaging for wotc, I imagine that it would violate most online marketplaces terms of use for similar reasons.

Wotc has working relationships with Amazon, Kickstart and so forth. Furthermore, if someone in a Ford Fiesta runs me off the road, I don't get mad at Ford. Instead I get angry at the driver. The rpg community is far more likely to attack the publisher of the work, rather than wotc

[Satinavian]

D&D is trying to be the Disney of the tabletop world, presenting not just a world but also a game where diversity and friendship are the key to victory.

That was never a strength of D&D and many competitors were far ahead in this area for decades.

Furthermore i don't really believe they want to change that. They do the bare minimun when the public outcry becomes too loud. And now i am supposed to believe that they not only want to change their way but also are so offended by transgressions of others that they need the ability to revoke licenses for it ? Nah.

[Xervous]

Does anybody else think a "deauth" sounds enough like a "gauth" that it should be a beholder-kin?

Given that beholders in prior editions ate offspring they deemed imperfect it sounds rather fitting.

[animorte]

That was never a strength of D&D and many competitors were far ahead in this area for decades.

Never too late to join in.

Furthermore i don't really believe they want to change that. They do the bare minimun when the public outcry becomes too loud. And now i am supposed to believe that they not only want to change their way but also are so offended by transgressions of others that they need the ability to revoke licenses for it ? Nah.

We all know good and well it has nothing to do with what they think. The community has made it very clear they overall have no problem whatsoever attempting to regulate speech/actions. I mean isn't that what we're doing in the way this OGL has been addressed? Not to mention countless other examples I will not go into detail here.

[Psyren]

This is like if Disney had, to justify their classic fairy tale adaptations, released an open license on them, and now was trying to revoke that license and claim that no future products using any fairy tale elements they had in their classics may be made without a much more draconian new license from Disney. You want to make a Cinderella story? You MUST comply with Disney's ever-shifting "morality" and with their whims and demands, and they can force you to scrap your entire movie days before release, or to cancel your show mid-season, if they deem your story "offensive."

I disagree that it's "much more draconian." Again, the morality clause they have here is akin to that of Adobe, Microsoft, and other licenses, and it doesn't even have the "we can also revoke for any reason with 30 days notice" that those do anymore. WotC's license is seriously tame. We can make it tamer via additional tweaks to 6f, I have no problem with that, but they're already well behind other licensors.