To add to this, performative anti-racism can be helpful, too. It’s a way for the big dog in the industry to say, “We don’t want racism to be part of gaming culture.” At best, it might persuade some budding racists to reconsider adopting hateful views. At minimum, it might convince some racists to shut the hell up.
If someone publishes a game with races instead of species, has racial attribute score increases, or a world where orcs are evil all the time, will that be considered offensive enought to warrant having the OGL revoked? Many of you on this board may think those are ridiculous scenarios, but each of these have been deemed offensive by enough D&D players that WotC decided to change D&D. And it’s not just about the content of the game, a publisher could do something completely unrelated to the game and WotC could just swoop in and say they can no longer use the OGL. And WotC is the sole aribitor of what constitutes offensive material or behavior. This new OGL is about controling the market not inclusion or fighting racism.
That indeed, is a decent point to be made. Yes, it is a Good Idea. BUT! Is it the best way to institute that Good idea? That is a very reasonable argument. But it is a Good Idea.
What I said in another D&D thread recently, in relation to “species” replacing “race”, applies here too:
Also don’t settle for barely acceptable just because it’s sold as being “good”. WotC shouldn’t have an insta-kill “I win” button baked into their license even under the pretense of fighting racism. The issue isn’t “this isn’t 100% perfect”, the issue is “This is potentially very bad for third party creators who make products in good faith but are trapped without any recourse if WotC says ‘Nah’ for any reason”
It’s more than “barely acceptable” to me. It’s very welcome.
Based on their recent actions on race issues, I don’t believe it’s just a pretense.
As I’ve said, I’m not really a consumer of 3rd party D&D content, so it’s not my ox being gored on that score, and I realise that.
But by the same token, when it comes to WoTC improving D&D’s stance around bigotry in any way, I care very much more.
Based on their two week ago action of trying to get Kickstarter, CR, etc signed onto a much more draconian OGL before making it public and this being the “Good Guy Compromise” edition they tossed out after the leak backlash, I wouldn’t give them any benefit of the doubt. This OGL wasn’t written by D&D creative staff, it was written by lawyers for the sole benefit of Hasbro.
That is based upon an unverified tweet.
You don’t ask people to sign a draft, especially a leaked draft.
It’s really not based on an unverified tweet. If you wanna double down on that, I encourage you to cite that specific claim.
Here’s the Director for Games from Kickstarter:
https://twitter.com/jonritter/status/1611077486254645252
Seems pretty verified to me. We could piddle around with “But what exactly is a draft…?” or whatever but it’s clear that WotC was working to get stuff lined up for the original OGL changes before they were made public. They deserve no benefit of the doubt just because now they wrap up some of their incredibly one-sided and creator-hostile terms in “We’re fighting racism! Hooray!”
Too late to edit but worth pointing out: I said “signed onto”, as in, in agreement with the terms, ready to back WotC and promote it, etc. So when they would drop the new terms, it’d already basically be fait accompli. No one actually signs the OGL like a contract, as far as I know.
To be clear, I’m not talking about headpats and bonbons for WOTC, when I suggest that the anti-racist stuff is legit. I’m saying that it’s a sign of competing interests inside WOTC. The OGL proposal can be a hot mess overall, AND it can have provisions in it that are good and sincerely motivated by some of the folks involved.
The benefit of the doubt that I’m giving is to individuals, not to the corporation at large.
I just don’t think the application here is good and, while I’m certain that some people at WotC are sincere, I’m not sure any of them were involved in drafting this OGL (with the stories that much of the D&D rank-and-file staff was blindsided by it).
There’s a fair bit of irony that WotC is awarded numerous chances to atone for fifty years of questionable decisions and get praise for saying “species” and maybe making the Evil Black-Skinned Race a little less monstrous, but WotC also gets the sole right to hold the kill switch on anyone else’s product, without recourse or a chance for adjustment, in the name of fighting discrimination.
Same here.
I don’t really have an opinion on this mess, but I have listened to the “Opening Arguments “ podcast mentioned earlier in the thread. The host, who seems to be a competent lawyer, was a bit boggled that the original OGL didn’t contain clauses to shut down offensive content and sever the company from lawsuits derived from others using the OGL. According to him, these things are just common sense ass-covering that should be included even if you don’t anticipate any issues. These specific changes are just fixing an oversight that never should have happened in the first place. His reasoning seems sound to me.
I don’t have an issue with Hasbro wanting some protection/separation from stuff made with the OGL. I disagree that “We can arbitrarily kill your material and you agree to shut up and accept it” is a good way of going about it. I already have a day job so I’m not about to write their OGL for them but I’d much rather see something that separates WotC from liability and also provides a path or arbitration for third party creators to respond to concerns/criticism rather than the current cudgel method. As written, I’d consider it a chilling effect on third party creators. Which Hasbro might well consider a feature.
Maybe to you a tweet is a verified Press release, but not to me.
However signing or agreeing to a draft copy of a contract that fast while it is under scrutiny is ridiculously foolish. Generally companies sign such things after lawyers read them, and approve them, and negotiations are done, which takes months, not 24 hours or so.
If Kickstarter really did such a unprofessional business move without lengthy consultation and negotiation, they are idiots. To make me believe Kickstarter are idiots of that level, I’d have to see a press release, not a tweet.
The 20% of $750K was dropped by WotC very quickly. If Kickstarter really agreed to kick back 20% of OGL product earning, they did so way, way too soon.
A press release is no more verified than a Tweet. I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Are you suggesting that Kickstarter’s Director for Games is lying with his very specific Tweet, or that he’s so incompetent at his job that he’s mistaken?
It’s truly a bizarre take on the situation to suggest that he’s not a reliable source of information on the department that he manages.
Well, if they agreed to the 20% thing, that was walked back by WotC shortly after, then yes, he is incompetent at his job.
But as i said contract negotiations take time, weeks or months not hours.
My guess is that he was throwing oil on the fire to get more outrage. Which worked. The Tweet was a negotiation ploy. If so, it worked.
Or he is grossly incompetent if he really agreed to the 20% without lengthy negotiations and lawyer input.
Pick one.
It’s not as though we know when WotC approached Kickstarter about it to say “there’s no way they could have decided that fast”. Early January was when the new document leaked, not when Hasbro sat down to write it. I also doubt the Director of Games at Kickstarter was opening them to a libel suit by making shit up to “throw oil on the fire” and making false specific claims about their interactions with Hasbro. Now THAT would be incompetent.
Ultimately though I guess it doesn’t really matter if you want to accept it as evidence that WotC was working to secure the OGL terms before release and got undercut by the leak.