@nicky is clearly alluding, if hyperbolically, to the rationale of WotC having to revoke the existing OGLs and issue a far more restrictive one to protect their system (or whatever) from the hypothetical threat of bigotry and racism.
Stranger
The issue with Star Frontiers has to do with an expired trademark and nothing to do with the OGL so far as I can tell.
It’s the purpose of the revised OGL they recently released as well. It boggles my mind that anyone could think maintaining an inclusive environment is the main purpose behind this change. No, it still to forcer players to play in WotC’s garden.
Thanks stranger , i thought that was obvious . I was wromg.
I still don’t really understand what the OGL permitted that people couldn’t already legally do. It seems to me that given the discussions here it had zero legal relevance. Given that, I don’t see why anyone should care what the revised license says.
The primary purpose of the original Open Gaming License was to assure content creators that they would not be subject to any legal challenge for making content that was explicitly compatible or derived from OGL-licensed mechanics and intellectual property. That is to say, it created a permissive environment for third party creators to freely market compatibility with 3rd Edition and later 5th Edition D20 mechanics, but not “Product Identity” (PI), i.e. the term “Dungeons & Dragons or campaign settings that were property of Wizards of the Coast, and that more importantly creators would retain rights to their original creations. The OGL 1.0a also offered the use of certain identified aspects of PI under a royalty system. The (draft) OGL 1.1, on the other hand, imposed a bunch of restrictions and ambiguous prohibitions as well as uncertainty about whether creators would retain full rights to their own intellectual property produced under the license. All of this fell under the specter of WotC and Hasbro trying to launch a new gaming platform and drive current players into it to better “monetize” them (in real people terms, extract the maximum profit for minimum value).
There is nothing Hasbro and WotC can do to prevent people from creating D&D-like material using similar mechanics and recognizable but not trademarked terminology, which is what the Old School Renaissance movement is about, but they can contest the use the “5E” logo or explicit compatibility with the system even if a “Fortress Ironraptor” setting uses essentially identical mechanics. In short, it was really a way for Wizards of the Coast to look like the most venal and litigious of all possible game companies without actually protecting anything, which again is the sort of thing you get from a coven of MBAs who think that “D&D” is some special thing that cannot be reproduced without their special sauce. The crux comes in that many content producers have large inventories and projects in process that are ostensibly dependent upon the OGL and the changes would potentially render them vulnerable to lawsuits which could bankrupt them even if the outcome of the suit is in their favor.
Stranger
Reportedly, one of the things driving the “monetization” effort with D&D is some MBA realized that a D&D game involves five or six people playing a game that only one person actually bought, and they want to “fix” that.
Makes me wonder what’s going to happen when these assholes learn Hasbro publishes board games, too.
Legal analysis of the OGL 1.2, cued up to the “No Hateful Conduct” clause:
Stranger
Are you unaware of Little Gygax Spawn Ernie and his associate’s political proclivities? Clearly not. Wouldn’t put it past them, so why are you acting like this could never happen?
The only thing it prevents is using the OGL for making a racist TTRPG. No one is going to say “We have a great idea for a super-racist RPG… wait, we can’t use OGL mechanics? Never mind then, I guess we’ll go do something else”. This change will eliminate exactly zero racism in gaming, at best it will shield WotC at the cost of making non-racist people nervous about using the OGL and what Hasbro will decide is good or bad without any recourse if they pick “bad”.
Why don’t you ask this guy?
In that link, he’s saying that accidental racism for which the perpetrator apologized and changed is no big deal. Here, we’re talking about the possibility of blatant, unrepentant racists deliberately making racist content, and a company fighting against them to the extent they’re able. There really isn’t a conflict between @DrDeth 's positions in those two posts.
I wasn’t linking for just that post, but his entire contribution to that Hadozee discussion.
That whole part of the thread was about WOTC making changes to their product to remove some racist content, and DrDeth spent all his posts there arguing against that effort. It very much is in conflict with what he’s said here.
At no time did I argue against that effort. I just said nothing WotC did was deliberate or blatant. There is nothing wrong with making things better. If you want to debate that issue, debate that issue in that thread.
You said a lot more than that.
I would, but you seemed to have dropped out of it after being asked for citations.
And then you asked the question that you asked in this thread, very much against what you were doing in that thread. I was pointing out the inconsistency of asking “what’s wrong with fighting racism in gaming” coming from someone who previously was arguing very vigorously against … people fighting racism in gaming.
But my point has been made, I’ll drop it in this thread. Looking forward to you rejoining that one with that cite, though…
Again, are they using the OGL to publish their content or expressed any interest in doing so? No? Then as an example it is not germane to the discussion. When, or rather if, you find actual gaming products that are published under the OGL that are legitimately hateful or offensive (excluding, presumably, some WotC’s own content that some have found to be discriminatory and promoting bigoted or misogynistic ideas) then there is some basis of discussion of the evident and pressing need for this provision coincident with Hasbro trying to force players of Dungeons & Dragons into their exclusive walled garden and leverage complete control over any content creators utilizing their license.
If Wizards of the Coast were really focused on that issue they could have published an amendment to the existing OGL or a new OGL that had a specific focus on that issue instead of one with provisions to be able to control or cancel permission to anyone using the OGL at any time, claims upon uncompensated use of their intellectual property, and he ability to arbitrarily alter or cancel the license with a 30 day notice. Even the ‘revised’ OGL 1.2 has a provision that is excessively broad; instead of defining what constitutes “hateful content” it provides this:
“No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.”
They have, in essence, created a trap door in which they can void any licensee’s ability to publish and distribute their product at any time with no legal recourse or arbitration.
No other TTRPG company—even ones for which their subject matter intrinsically contains content that many would find to be “harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing” by dint of the setting—seems to feel the need to police users to this extent, probably because they recognize that it is beyond their ability to control what people do, and that the gaming community as a whole has become pretty good about policing people who try to disseminate actually hateful content. Such a broad prohibition would also put a damper on products that explore these issues in a thoughtful way such as Chris Spivey’s Harlem Unbound, not to mention that what constitutes “obscenity” is a largely subjective measure.
This is just an attempt at a fig leaf over Hasbro and WotC trying to monopolize the market and alienate the third party content producers that were previously regarded as helping to promote and amplify their brand, because why leave money on the table for little goblins to grub away if it could go in their coffers.
Stranger
IANAL and I am not sure how this works. Can someone answer this for me? Is it possible to make any changes to an OGL and still call it the same OGL version number? How would an amendment work?
How does the Creative Commons license differ from the OGL?
The OGL 1.2 and the VTT policy sections are still bad. They get to decide what can be at the table in a VTT without being used wrong. They cite an animated Magic Missile spell or fog of war. As someone said, in some discussion but I don’t think here, a laser pointer can do a magic missile and towels can be a fog of war at the table. Further, what about VTTs that are meant to be used in person? Arkenforge is one such table. It is intended to be used at the same table and has a player view. It includes all sorts of animations for trees, fires, smoke, and magical effects. Arkenforge might even have a version that reacts to minis.
As the Rules Lawyer says, there are sections in the 1.2 that are way too broad and need to be defined. Further, they still want to deauthorize the previous OGL. What does that do to ongoing Kickstarters or ones that companies were going to start soon? What does it do to reprints?
I feel for a lot of small companies that have relied on the OGL. ENWorld had a thread talking about how many of those companies have had to redo their plans. Many YouTube people have built their business/living around their 5E content and don’t know if they can continue or if they want to continue, since they don’t like what WotC is doing. I hope the best for them.
Thanks for the discussion!
It is certainly possible to amend a license or user agreement; software companies do it all the time. Whether you can apply such amendments to usage or further products generated under previous versions is a question (to which I think the answer would be generally no unless the licenser is providing active support under the current product). Regardless, neither the OGL or any other license can prevent another party from using the licensed material in an adverse way; it only allows them to revoke the license and reference to any trademarked material or intellectual property (which, as discussed upthread, is actually pretty minimal for the OGL), and potentially sue for damages from unauthorized use.
A hypothetical neo-Nazi game publisher could take the licensed material, remove any trademarks and reword licensed material, and continue to publish the same material, and unless it borrows other trademarked or copyrighted material there is nothing the licenser can do about it, any more than the Tolkien estate can sue pornography makers from making a movie called “The Two Mounds” featuring…well, I’ll let your imagination fill in the blanks.
Stranger
This is the same demonstrably false statement that was already debunked by two posters. Now sure, I am biased but Chronos is not. And you were told that it is a false statement, but you repeat it, in an attempt to hijack this thread with a grudge from another thread.
In other words, you use unfair debating tactics. And then you wonder why I didn’t want to go back and continue debating you.
And that last bit, of saying
After you repeat a demonstrably false statement is more evidence of why I won’t debate you.
Now of course, you will try and hijack this thread with proof your false statement is not false.
It doesn’t matter and it is germane. It is proof there are racists out there making RPGs, and that is why WotC does not want them to make a racist RPG using their OGL. Which is quite reasonable.
How many other TTRPG companies have an OGL? Paizo just put a version of one out.
Perhaps you are not aware that TSR sued creators for using such terms as “hit dice” “saving rolls” and similar terms. Such as the one against my good friend (may he rest in peace) Dave Hargrave. Nor that Games Workshop even sues fan artists.
Sure it is possible that such suits, if challenged, could be won by the defendant. But Dave couldnt afford to fight TSR/Gygax, nor can those fan artists, and etc.
But WotC is on a fight vs racism, and for some reason you are against this.
I noted earlier in the thread that at least three others do (though none of those systems are nearly at the scale of D&D or Pathfinder):
- Chaosium with Chaosium Basic Roleplaying
- Monte Cook Games with Cypher System
- Evil Hat Productions with Fate