New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 8 of 50 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516171833 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 1473
  1. - Top - End - #211
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2021

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Saintheart View Post
    I am a lawyer, but IP and serious contract law is not my specialty. Not providing legal advice here, and if you did use legal advice from a forum post you're in deeper trouble than I thought.

    That clause - plus outright 'deactivation' of 1.0a - means it's still a hard no from me. It is still an attempt primarily to eliminate competition from other, less-known, and in some cases better products, an anticompetitive wolf disguised as a sheep wringing its hands (hooves) about social media criticism.

    If WOTC decides they don't like your product issued under the OGL 1.2, they can kill it under this clause. No recourse, no definitions of terms, no fair or equal footing to contest it. WOTC defines what the words mean, just like Humpty Dumpty with Alice. "BuT yoU CaN ALWays TAke It TO CouRT!" Sure. Where WOTC has already primarily written the rules of that combat to favour them by the wording of the licence. And you have to not only get around their definition of the terms, but the clause in the contract that says you can't sue them to contest it. Yeah. Sure. Atticus Finch lives.

    It's now a decision for D&D players and weak DMs whether they can accept a monopolistic approach to the market disguised as a concern about moral panics. Simple as that.
    No advise from threads, just something a lawyer and I discussed in relationship to an unrelated matter.

    And yes, it is grounds to reject WOTC products, there we agree. As I noted, my concerns would be claims of violations based on dimilarities, because you know, I used the word "orc" for something inspired (but not fully developed from) ancient Minoan and Myconean culture, and therefore I must be violating their IP
    even though I'd never touch DnD after this. You and I are in substantial agreement.
    Last edited by ToranIronfinder; 2023-01-19 at 06:35 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #212
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Perth, West Australia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by BRC View Post
    I mean the positive light is that they want to protect the health of the brand by having a method of excluding offensive or hurtful content.
    I would suggest the health of a brand depends rather more substantially on something other than social media campaigns against things people don't like, or on being tarred with bad products from bad people who don't work for them.

    Case in point being the Book of Erotic Fantasy. Was originally to be published under the d20 trademark from c. 2000. The d20 trademark also got amended to include a "community decency" wordology, and WOTC used that to pull the licence for that product. It was because the OGL existed that the product still was published. I didn't see the towers of WOTC come crashing down because of it; by early 2000s standards the book was an eyebrow-raiser at least. (Although on a cold read these days, it's almost middle of the road if you exclude some of the interior art. It's kind of sad the book's acknowledgements contained more names of models than playtesters, but oh well.)

  3. - Top - End - #213
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Perth, West Australia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by ToranIronfinder View Post
    No advise from threads, just something a lawyer and I discussed in relationship to an unrelated matter.

    And yes, it is grounds to reject WOTC products, there we agree. As I noted, my concerns would be claims of violations based on dimilarities, because you know, I used the word "orc" for something inspired (but not fully developed from) ancient Minoan and Myconean culture, and therefore I must be violating their IP
    even though I'd never touch DnD after this. You and I are in substantial agreement.
    (For avoidance of doubt: my use of the word "you" was a reference to people in general, not you as in you personally. :D )

    I hate words. :D

  4. - Top - End - #214
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    One note--

    I didn't see any clause in there on a quick readthrough that lets you sublicense or declare your content to be available for others to use under that same license. There are only 4 types:
    1) CC stuff (explicitly deliniated)
    2) Their Licensed Stuff (anything else from the SRD)
    3) Your Licensed Stuff (anything you make under the license)
    4) Unlicensed Stuff (everything else of theirs).

    But in order to be category 3, it must include Their Licensed Stuff and Your Licensed Stuff. Not "Someone else who accepted this license's Licensed Stuff, even if they said it was under the license."

    This doesn't mean that you can't let someone else use your stuff...but you can only let them use the stuff that doesn't count as Your Licensed Stuff. Because they can't inherit the OGL status from you, they have to get it separately.

    Maybe I'm not reading it correctly? But that's a real bummer, since then you can't freely use other people's OGL stuff, whereas before they could declare some of it Open Gaming Content which was added to the OGL pool alongside the SRD material, etc. Now you have (if I'm reading that correctly) to do a separate license dance for that stuff.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  5. - Top - End - #215
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Blackdrop's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Endicott, NY
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    One note--

    I didn't see any clause in there on a quick readthrough that lets you sublicense or declare your content to be available for others to use under that same license. There are only 4 types:
    1) CC stuff (explicitly deliniated)
    2) Their Licensed Stuff (anything else from the SRD)
    3) Your Licensed Stuff (anything you make under the license)
    4) Unlicensed Stuff (everything else of theirs).

    But in order to be category 3, it must include Their Licensed Stuff and Your Licensed Stuff. Not "Someone else who accepted this license's Licensed Stuff, even if they said it was under the license."

    This doesn't mean that you can't let someone else use your stuff...but you can only let them use the stuff that doesn't count as Your Licensed Stuff. Because they can't inherit the OGL status from you, they have to get it separately.

    Maybe I'm not reading it correctly? But that's a real bummer, since then you can't freely use other people's OGL stuff, whereas before they could declare some of it Open Gaming Content which was added to the OGL pool alongside the SRD material, etc. Now you have (if I'm reading that correctly) to do a separate license dance for that stuff.
    I think you're reading it correctly. There's also doesn't seem to be any recourse spelled out for you if someone else steals your content as well.
    Add me on Steam!
    Steam ID: tfblackdrop

    Spoiler
    Show

    Homebrew:
    Spoiler
    Show

  6. - Top - End - #216
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Atranen View Post
    I'm curious about why you disagree with the bolded premise. Thus far, I've seen arguments that WoTC has the right to make changes and that it makes business sense for them to make changes. But I haven't seen any reason why WoTC constructing a walled garden is good for the TTRPG community or beneficial to me as a TTRPG player.
    Speaking for myself, (without anyone putting words in my mouth):

    As with the previous OGL, the current one include Wizards of the Coast's name. That means anyone releasing products under it will be including the license, and WotC's name, in their product. Simply put, WotC has the right to control which books reference their company by name. This clause gives them a means of defense if a reprehensible work does so. That's beneficial to any creator who is offering a license, including ORC if it were to somehow end up with Paizo's name at the top, not just WotC.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  7. - Top - End - #217
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Rynjin View Post
    Based on an unrelated discussion from another thread, Psyren appears to believe that what is good for Wizards is good for TTRPGs as a whole, and vice versa. The new OGL is good for Wizards, and thus D&D, and thus good for the community.

    This is something there is probably no way to reconcile. He can feel free to correct me, but this is what I THINK his position was on the matter.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdrop View Post
    Based on this thread Psyren seems to be operating under the bizarre belief that TTRPG community and WotC are one and the same. Why he thinks that it is the bigger question.

    Edit: Damnit Rynjin *fist shake*
    Ah. Well if one believed WoTC making more money would be good for TTRPGs, and I agree we're not going to progress. But Psyren can correct me if I'm wrong about that.

    EDIT: Sorry Psyren, I missed your post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    Speaking for myself, (without anyone putting words in my mouth):

    As with the previous OGL, the current one include Wizards of the Coast's name. That means anyone releasing products under it will be including the license, and WotC's name, in their product. Simply put, WotC has the right to control which books reference their company by name. This clause gives them a means of defense if a reprehensible work does so. That's beneficial to any creator who is offering a license, including ORC if it were to somehow end up with Paizo's name at the top, not just WotC.
    No dispute here, I understand why they're doing it and why it makes sense from WoTC's perspective. But this doesn't address my question--how is that good for the TTRPG community? How is that good for me as a TTRPG player? How is it good for anyone other than WoTC?

    END EDIT

    Ironically, there is an angle for 'this is good for the community'; it's that the community to a large extent leaves WoTC, competing products spring up, and D&D is no longer the only game in town (or overwhelmingly most common game, if you have to be literal). We get more experimentation with mechanics, some new innovations, and everyone wins.

    But in that case the community would be providing the win, not WoTC.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saintheart View Post
    It's now a decision for D&D players and weak DMs whether they can accept a monopolistic approach to the market disguised as a concern about moral panics. Simple as that.
    Yeah, the wording of that section is incredibly hostile to creators. Suppose some version of their Spelljammer issue happened with a 3PP. In WoTC's case, they published an errata and apology online, and that was that. But if a 3PP does the same...maybe their work never sees the light of day again. Which is just to say, the kind of mistakes that run afoul of the clause are easy to make, even for the company defining the terms.
    Last edited by Atranen; 2023-01-19 at 07:13 PM.

  8. - Top - End - #218
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Saintheart View Post
    I am a lawyer, but IP and serious contract law is not my specialty. Not providing legal advice here, and if you did use legal advice from a forum post you're in deeper trouble than I thought.

    That clause - plus outright 'deactivation' of 1.0a - means it's still a hard no from me. It is still an attempt primarily to eliminate competition from other, less-known, and in some cases better products, an anticompetitive wolf disguised as a sheep wringing its hands (hooves) about social media criticism.

    If WOTC decides they don't like your product issued under the OGL 1.2, they can kill it under this clause. No recourse, no definitions of terms, no fair or equal footing to contest it. WOTC defines what the words mean, just like Humpty Dumpty with Alice. "BuT yoU CaN ALWays TAke It TO CouRT!" Sure. Where WOTC has already primarily written the rules of that combat to favour them by the wording of the licence. And you have to not only get around their definition of the terms, but the clause in the contract that says you can't sue them to contest it. Yeah. Sure. Atticus Finch lives.

    It's now a decision for D&D players and weak DMs whether they can accept a monopolistic approach to the market disguised as a concern about moral panics. Simple as that.
    Thank you for wording this far better than I ever could!

    I see no significant improvements in 1.2. It's an "improvement" of being stabbed in the back 21 times instead of 24 times... Does it even matter??
    Last edited by Lemmy; 2023-01-19 at 07:15 PM.
    Homebrew Stuff:

  9. - Top - End - #219
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Blackdrop's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Endicott, NY
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    It might be the sleep deprivation talking but what does disagreeing with this bolded:

    That's the whole point--what they have identified as 'core goals' are in competition with the best way to have a healthy TTRPG community. It's not a question of 'what we can get them to budge on', it's a question of why have they adopted these as core goals in the first place, given that they must do something bad for the community in order to achieve them?
    Have to do with this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    Speaking for myself, (without anyone putting words in my mouth):

    As with the previous OGL, the current one include Wizards of the Coast's name. That means anyone releasing products under it will be including the license, and WotC's name, in their product. Simply put, WotC has the right to control which books reference their company by name. This clause gives them a means of defense if a reprehensible work does so. That's beneficial to any creator who is offering a license, including ORC if it were to somehow end up with Paizo's name at the top, not just WotC.
    Unless you're trying to argue that WotC deciding that it gets to be S&P for everyone who uses the OGL 1.2 is somehow good for the health of TTRPG community at large?
    Which, come to think of it, does kinda it fit with the idea that WotC=the TTRPG community.
    Last edited by Blackdrop; 2023-01-19 at 07:17 PM.
    Add me on Steam!
    Steam ID: tfblackdrop

    Spoiler
    Show

    Homebrew:
    Spoiler
    Show

  10. - Top - End - #220
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    Simply put, WotC has the right to control which books reference their company by name.
    No they don't.

    There is no right and no legal basis to control anyone or anything referencing a company or even a person by name.

    Making claim about said company or person? Sure, there are legal basis.

    But referencing or mentioning? Nothing.

  11. - Top - End - #221
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Goblin

    Join Date
    Mar 2019

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    And after all the discussion... nothing will really change. WotC will lose some market share and a degree of control, mostly because this flap has raised the question of whether or not the OGL is even needed except in a few cases and there will be a couple of lawsuits that determine the exact boundaries of the IP claim (can they claim mechanics?). But they'll damage control and the vast majority of the players will go back to playing D&D because they love the IP and the game itself. It's the game everyone uses to date themselves. I've been playing since version X. They aren't going anywhere. Ten years from now they'll be saying "I survived OGL".

  12. - Top - End - #222
    Titan in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by ProsecutorGodot View Post
    Actually the current SRD is 5.1.

    My main issue is 9(d) where Wizards has the express right to void the license whenever, for any or no reason.
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    Ah, I'd not realized that about the current SRD.

    As to 9(d), my understanding is that that's a bog-standard clause. It only triggers when a part of it is struck down by the courts and reserves the right to either cut that part out and enforce the rest or drop the whole thing (for a rewrite). That sort of clause is everywhere in most contracts so you don't get to defeat the whole thing by finding a hole in one little bit. Or if you can cut out the heart, you can't wear it as a skin-suit.
    9(d) might be standard but it is abusable with 7(a). Just modify a dynamic section to be unenforceable and then revoke the entire license.



    6(f) allows it to be revoked and allows it to be abused.
    9(d) allows it to be revoked.
    7(a) is abusable*
    * I see a code injection abuse, I don't know if that would hold up in court or if it would trigger 9(d).
    3 + 9(e) could be reasonable or could be an exploit to limit accountability for plagiarism (and make plagiarism turn a profit).
    Edit: On a reread, 3 is reasonable. I thought it prevented punitive damages.
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2023-01-19 at 09:05 PM.

  13. - Top - End - #223
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    The whole thing leading to conflating 'who owns the material being licensed' and 'who owns the concept of this license' (and by extension having this really artificial 'if person A is going to let person B use something they made, WotC is a concerned party because person A is using a license written first by WotC') is really a mess. Even some other license where some party tries to retain a sense of ownership over the license text itself seems vulnerable to conflicts of interest, especially when that owning company is a TTRPG company.

    Like, if I were making something that I had sole ownership of, choosing to license that out as OGL or even ORC seems like just giving control to a third party who otherwise wouldn't be a stakeholder at all. It seems foolish to do that rather than, say, just entering the work into public domain or using one of the generic CC licenses.
    Last edited by NichG; 2023-01-19 at 07:21 PM.

  14. - Top - End - #224
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Abilene, TX
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    I think a different part of the hateful conduct rule’s problems is that WotC’s standards for immorality are obscure even to WotC. The rewriting of the Hadozee show that WotC can believe it is acting in good faith and doing diligence and then be persuaded (totally voluntarily) to take down the content. That’s not to say the rewrite was bad, but it is saying it can just not achieve it’s own moral standard by accident. What sort of person wants to be judged by someone who is not even aware of their own rules?
    Vincent Omnia Veritas
    Bandwagon Leader of the Hinjo Fanclub

  15. - Top - End - #225
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2021

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    One note--

    I didn't see any clause in there on a quick readthrough that lets you sublicense or declare your content to be available for others to use under that same license. There are only 4 types:
    1) CC stuff (explicitly deliniated)
    2) Their Licensed Stuff (anything else from the SRD)
    3) Your Licensed Stuff (anything you make under the license)
    4) Unlicensed Stuff (everything else of theirs).

    But in order to be category 3, it must include Their Licensed Stuff and Your Licensed Stuff. Not "Someone else who accepted this license's Licensed Stuff, even if they said it was under the license."

    This doesn't mean that you can't let someone else use your stuff...but you can only let them use the stuff that doesn't count as Your Licensed Stuff. Because they can't inherit the OGL status from you, they have to get it separately.

    Maybe I'm not reading it correctly? But that's a real bummer, since then you can't freely use other people's OGL stuff, whereas before they could declare some of it Open Gaming Content which was added to the OGL pool alongside the SRD material, etc. Now you have (if I'm reading that correctly) to do a separate license dance for that stuff.
    Also the 3.x material isn't delineated, which as I noted is the big problem for someone publishing under OpenD6.

    http://www.antipaladingames.com/2023...i-six.html?m=1

  16. - Top - End - #226
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by jjordan View Post
    And after all the discussion... nothing will really change.
    The very fact that it was caught, raised and pushed on is itself noteworthy, even if its only a footnote in the history.
    Roll for it
    5e Houserules and Homebrew
    Old Extended Signature
    Awesome avatar by Ceika

  17. - Top - End - #227
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdrop View Post
    It might be the sleep deprivation talking but what does disagreeing with this bolded:



    Have to do with this:
    We were explicitly talking about WotC's "core goals." Could you please stop dragging in baggage from completely different threads where I wasn't even discussing the OGL?
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  18. - Top - End - #228
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by jjordan View Post
    And after all the discussion... nothing will really change. WotC will lose some market share and a degree of control, mostly because this flap has raised the question of whether or not the OGL is even needed except in a few cases and there will be a couple of lawsuits that determine the exact boundaries of the IP claim (can they claim mechanics?). But they'll damage control and the vast majority of the players will go back to playing D&D because they love the IP and the game itself. It's the game everyone uses to date themselves. I've been playing since version X. They aren't going anywhere. Ten years from now they'll be saying "I survived OGL".
    Or maybe people will stay mad enough to tank D&Done and make the other Wizasbro projects failures in their owners' money-symbol-covered eyes.

    I don't think will be enough to stop WotC from existing, but people voting with their wallets DID impact the company in the past. There is no reason to think Wizasbro is going to take a small loss and nothing else.

    Well, no reason YET.
    Last edited by Unoriginal; 2023-01-19 at 07:28 PM.

  19. - Top - End - #229
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Kane0 View Post
    The very fact that it was caught, raised and pushed on is itself noteworthy, even if its only a footnote in the history.
    I can agree with that. And we have more pushback yet. I could see the "you agree not to sue" clause in 6f attracting some ire.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    No they don't.

    There is no right and no legal basis to control anyone or anything referencing a company or even a person by name.

    Making claim about said company or person? Sure, there are legal basis.

    But referencing or mentioning? Nothing.
    They're not just idly referring to them though, they're actively using their license. I can see that being too close to tacit approval for WotC. You're always free to release your content without it.

    I'm going to be very amused if/when ORC includes a similar clause.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  20. - Top - End - #230
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    I can agree with that. And we have more pushback yet. I could see the "you agree not to sue" clause in 6f attracting some ire.
    Yeah I can definitely imagine a large portion of people responding with a sound 'I agree to no such thing!'
    Roll for it
    5e Houserules and Homebrew
    Old Extended Signature
    Awesome avatar by Ceika

  21. - Top - End - #231
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Blackdrop's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Endicott, NY
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    We were explicitly talking about WotC's "core goals." Could you please stop dragging in baggage from completely different threads where I wasn't even discussing the OGL?
    Let's try this again.

    What does disagreeing with this:

    ...what they have identified as 'core goals' are in competition with the best way to have a healthy TTRPG community...
    Have to do with them having unilateral control over what is offensive or hateful?

    And what you refer to as "baggage" I'm trying to use as "context", 'cuz I genuinely have no idea what your point is supposed to be.
    Add me on Steam!
    Steam ID: tfblackdrop

    Spoiler
    Show

    Homebrew:
    Spoiler
    Show

  22. - Top - End - #232
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2021

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    They're not just idly referring to them though, they're actively using their license. I can see that being too close to tacit approval for WotC. You're always free to release your content without it.
    Yes but as the license is often posted in books not because WOTC content is used, but to avoid frivolous suits based on "similarities" it does present a problem. The real problem isn't for people creating an overt DnD setting. "It is that WOTC could say your orcs are similar to ours so you will pull your product line or we will sue you." You really can't use 1.2 for that type of protection from the frivolous suits that will I expect will follow.
    Last edited by ToranIronfinder; 2023-01-19 at 07:44 PM.

  23. - Top - End - #233
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdrop View Post
    Let's try this again.

    What does disagreeing with this:



    Have to do with them having unilateral control over what is offensive or hateful?
    If you don't want them to define it, then who?
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  24. - Top - End - #234
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    If you don't want them to define it, then who?
    I do want them to define it. But up front, in clear terms they can be held to. Not as an amorphous "things we don't like" clause.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  25. - Top - End - #235
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    What is considered hateful or offensive is much like what is considered politically correct, its not universally understood and is subject to change over time. Leaving that open to interpretation is going to lead to problems even before you account for a single entity determining it.
    Roll for it
    5e Houserules and Homebrew
    Old Extended Signature
    Awesome avatar by Ceika

  26. - Top - End - #236
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    If you don't want them to define it, then who?
    They can define it clearly, i.e. in a way where a 3PP can be sure prior to publication that their work will not be invalidated, or they can give up defining it. Given the topic in question, I don't think a clear enough definition is possible.

    And I agree with Blackdrop that I don't see how this relates to the question of whether a walled garden is best for the TTRPG community.

  27. - Top - End - #237
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2021

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    I do want them to define it. But up front, in clear terms they can be held to. Not as an amorphous "things we don't like" clause.
    Yep. Particularly when done publically.

    Kane
    What is considered hateful or offensive is much like what is considered politically correct, its not universally understood and is subject to change over time. Leaving that open to interpretation is going to lead to problems even before you account for a single entity determining it.
    That is the nature of debates outside of the board, but I would suggest this is the general problem of the day, different worldviews exist within the same society. But in any kind of license or contract, the terms need to be concrete rather than fuzzy. If they said no intentional disparagement of real world living groups, fine but if someone misunderstands your literary sources for something and applies it to a living group, now we have a problem, because under these types of areas where the readers response is more important than the creator's intentions, we have crossed several perilous straits, since one can never anticipate how someone will eisegete something into your work at some point in the future.
    Last edited by ToranIronfinder; 2023-01-19 at 08:01 PM.

  28. - Top - End - #238
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Blackdrop's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Endicott, NY
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    If you don't want them to define it, then who?
    Oh no no no, we're not playing this game.

    Please tell me why WotC having unilateral control to define what is offensive or hateful good for the health of the TTRPG community?
    Add me on Steam!
    Steam ID: tfblackdrop

    Spoiler
    Show

    Homebrew:
    Spoiler
    Show

  29. - Top - End - #239
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    I do want them to define it. But up front, in clear terms they can be held to. Not as an amorphous "things we don't like" clause.
    Quote Originally Posted by Atranen View Post
    They can define it clearly, i.e. in a way where a 3PP can be sure prior to publication that their work will not be invalidated, or they can give up defining it.
    Language and culture change over time. Locking in a specific definition now is not helpful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Atranen View Post
    And I agree with Blackdrop that I don't see how this relates to the question of whether a walled garden is best for the TTRPG community.
    As a core goal, the alternative is no license at all. You could hold out hope that "ORC" does not include a similar clause I suppose, but given that Paizo's compatibility license includes a similar provision, and that inclusivity and having the means to oppose being associated with offensive content is one of the key areas where Paizo and WotC share common ground, I think your chances are slim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdrop View Post
    Oh no no no, we're not playing this game.

    Please tell me why WotC having unilateral control to define what is offensive or hateful good for the health of the TTRPG community?
    There is no "game." It's the best option and you have no better alternative.
    Last edited by Psyren; 2023-01-19 at 08:05 PM.

  30. - Top - End - #240
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2016

    Default Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    If you don't want them to define it, then who?
    Last time I checked the community already does a decent job of policing this sort of thing. Like if someone does publish a work that is morally objectionable, word will spread via review that the content is morally objectionable.

    It is impossible to do them via Kickstarter, Amazon, DriveThru RGP, etc.

    I suppose that you can make them for unofficial distribution, but then the OGL 1.2 doesn't apply them anyway.
    So before you take my childish advice, I would recommend that you take my adult advice. Talk to your Dm about the problem (if it is even a problem or whatever) and have them talk to the other player about how they are acting and if they are willing to change their behavior, then the problem is solved. If not then you can take my childish advice.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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