So how do we respond?

[reelo]

I'm going to buy the books because from what I've seen so far, OneDnD is looking good, and watch the DnD movie because it looks like it's going to be a lot of fun. These potential changes to the OGL aren't really going to impact me.

So basically: "I'm fine with sh***y behaviour, as long as it doesn't affect me."

 

[S'mon]

A Drow is 3e SRD content, among other Elf cultures. At least the Drow is also a 5e SRD monster.

An artistic portrait of a Drow Wizard casting a Lightningbolt or "Tiny Hut", would also be fair use of the SRD.

Any media that portray a Dragonborn or Tiefling are also fair use of the SRD.

If Hasbro wants to retain certain Property Identity, then obviously dont add it to the SRD.

But the content that is already in the historical SRDs − those genies are out of the bottle.

Although notably the 5e SRD scrubbed the descriptive text from the 3e SRD. There may be some 5e SRD monsters that don't have OGC descriptive text. In which case you have no particular right to depict them based off WoTC text or art. The 5e PHB races do have descriptions in the 5e SRD though, so Dragonborn & Tiefling seem fine.

 

[Aldarc]

Even if WotC walks back the OGL 1.1, I'm curious how this will affect the D&D and broader TTRPG community in the shorter and longer terms.

 

[Yaarel]

Although notably the 5e SRD scrubbed the descriptive text from the 3e SRD. There may be some 5e SRD monsters that don't have OGC descriptive text. In which case you have no particular right to depict them based off WoTC text or art. The 5e PHB races do have descriptions in the 5e SRD though, so Dragonborn & Tiefling seem fine.

Fair enough about the need for an SRD textual description.

But art can refer to both the 3e SRD and 5e SRD.

 

[see]

Good luck passing legislation with a House that can't even decide on a Speaker. Maybe Europe can save us.

Contract law in the US is mostly state law, even when applied by the Federal courts; a legislative strategy should probably focus on state legislatures, not Congress.

 

[mhd]

Even if WotC walks back the OGL 1.1, I'm curious how this will affect the D&D and broader TTRPG community in the shorter and longer terms.

People sometimes draw connections to the software world and especially its open-source/free software sub-cultures, but I don't really see anything like that happen. RPG creation is just too visual and not inherently collaborative. So this would be closer to a AAA video game being made by volunteers than something like Linux. It's a bit like giving kids celery sticks instead of french fries.

You'll get a few more people that care more about "anti-corporate" gaming. So maybe one or two now-OGL legacy game engines being licensed even more openly, a handful of new itch "Truly Free" games, and not much more.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I think the time to push is now, not "wait and see".

WotC hasn't formally published, so they're not committed yet. Backlash now allows them two outs: either (1) internally change direction, and comply with what their customers want (presuming: retain OGL1.0 in an irrevocable state), or (2) say "that's not what we were going to do" and go public with a compliant version immediate. Both actions defuse tension.

If we wait to push and they publish 1.1 deauthorizing 1.0, and then backlash starts, the lawyers can get involved true -- but that gets convoluted and takes forever. In the face of public backlash once published, a corporation is much more likely to double down and hunker behind their lawyers, which could end up worse in the long run.

Its almost always better to deter conflict than fight. We're still in a space where deterrence can work.

 

[Guest 7034872]

Its almost always better to deter conflict than fight. We're still in a space where deterrence can work.

I do think that's right. My hope is that they'll look all this over very closely while having their internal fights about what to do, and that cooler heads ultimately will prevail. Scorched-earth tactics do work sometimes, but they're never a healthy default.

 

[mhd]

Speaking of "scorching", this reminded me slightly of the GIF licensing issues that happened between 1999 and 2004. You know, the graphics format that has birthed countless memes, basically the only way to have something animated (or transparent) on the early web.

And all of a sudden, licensing fees were demanded. So there was a rather big backlash, many applications dropped GIF support, web pages were encouraged to use the "PNG" alternative.

There even was a "Burn All Gifs" page for activism.

This stopped when the patents expired.

When we're talking about books, I wouldn't encourage anything with "Burn" in the title, but a bit of activism and switching, at least until the courts make their decisions might be in our future.

 

[bostonmyk]

I think the time to push is now, not "wait and see".

WotC hasn't formally published, so they're not committed yet. Backlash now allows them two outs: either (1) internally change direction, and comply with what their customers want (presuming: retain OGL1.0 in an irrevocable state), or (2) say "that's not what we were going to do" and go public with a compliant version immediate. Both actions defuse tension.

If we wait to push and they publish 1.1 deauthorizing 1.0, and then backlash starts, the lawyers can get involved true -- but that gets convoluted and takes forever. In the face of public backlash once published, a corporation is much more likely to double down and hunker behind their lawyers, which could end up worse in the long run.

Its almost always better to deter conflict than fight. We're still in a space where deterrence can work.

The best response for the near term is to buy stuff 3rd party stuff from the likely targets prior to the release date. They'll need the revenue to survive and then fight if necessary. It is the very least, tangible thing I can do knowing so little. I'm a little relieved that most of my holiday gifts and buys were mostly 3rd party.

Mike