D&D (2024) New leak looks real bad

[Bagpuss]

This seems far fetched, to be honest. How could WotC be liable for OGL content?

Because they have given them a license to use their work which it is based off. They have said it's okay it's official OGL content licensed under OGL1.0a

Now if your are going to sue about product do you go after the small 3 party with limited resources, or do you go after the bigger corp that will settle out of court to avoid having their brand associated with whatever product is objectionable?

They don't even need to be liable they just don't want it getting in the press and tarnishing the brand. They are looking for D&D to be the next Marvel/Disney they need to make it family friendly and clean it up. It's daft but it likely is how lawyers and execs that came up with this mess are thinking.

 

[Haplo781]

There are no AI DMs

Someone screwed up and mixed up an I for an L. It was AL DMs aka Adventurer League DMs.

According to a random Twitter post, yes.

 

[Haplo781]

Because they have given them a license to use their work which it is based off. They have said it's okay it's official OGL content licensed under OGL1.0a

Now if your are going to sue about product do you go after the small 3 party with limited resources, or do you go after the bigger corp that will settle out of court to avoid having their brand associated with whatever product is objectionable?

They don't even need to be liable they just don't want it getting in the press and tarnishing the brand. They are looking for D&D to be the next Marvel/Disney they need to make it family friendly and clean it up.

The OGL doesn't make the brand available, full stop. This is a straw man.

 

[Bagpuss]

The OGL doesn't make the brand available, full stop. This is a straw man.

It's a licensed work thus associated and technically approved by WotC.

 

[Nikosandros]

It's a licensed work thus associated and technically approved by WotC.

No. There is no approval whatsoever by WotC. And actually, this is a fundamental part of the "O" in OGL.

 

[Umbran]

Such an urgent issue they waited 23 years to address it

Not exactly true, to the point of being misleading.

The d20 System Trademark license, for example, had terms enforcing quality standards, in including standards of decency. The DMs Guild agreement includes the ability to terminate your participation at any time - including because your work is a pile of racism or sexism.

WotC has effectively addressed such materials multiple times in the past, just in different agreements. So, this is hardly a new concern for them.

 

[Nikosandros]

Not exactly true, to the point of being misleading.

The d20 System Trademark license, for example, had terms enforcing quality standards, in including standards of decency. The DMs Guild agreement includes the ability to terminate your participation at any time - including because your work is a pile of racism or sexism.

WotC has effectively addressed such materials multiple times in the past, just in different agreements. So, this is hardly a new concern for them.

The d20 license was a trademark license. It is natural that WotC wanted to control what was published under it.

 

[Bagpuss]

No. There is no approval whatsoever by WotC. And actually, this is a fundamental part of the "O" in OGL.

You are right, but you are informed, doesn't help much if investors and shareholders are hearing from the press that WotC are supporting and providing content to Nazi publishers. Which is my point about it being suits and lawyers that don't understand the point and advantages of an open license being behind these moves.

You can see other terms in the OGL1.1 that are about these fears...

"A. If We are on the receiving end of any legal claims, fees, expenses, or penalties related to Your Licensed Works, You’re responsible for paying all Our costs, including attorney’s fees, costs of court, and any judgments or settlements.

B. If a claim is raised against You in connection with a Licensed Work, and You aren’t defending such a claim to Our satisfaction, We have the right, but not the obligation, to take over the defense of that claim against You. If We do so, You will reimburse Us for Our costs and expenses related to that defense."

It's all about protecting the WotC and D&D brand.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

So no shenanigans and no going off the rails, basically. So not even getting close to the experience of actually playing a tabletop RPG.

Yeah, I don't think we're at that stage with automation yet. And when we get closer, I would expect point crawls, with wandering monsters and light shenanigans, but ultimately, a game built around set pieces that can be largely pre-scripted.

That said, I think AI will get there. But I wouldn't be building a business model around it for at least 10 years.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

To you.

Them doing the OGL 1.1 was not breaking any promise they made in my opinion. A bunch of you just decided that.

"You" being an entire industry and actual WotC employees at the time of the OGL's drafting.

I get that this doesn't matter to you, but you're being dismissive of a rational response on the part of many (but obviously not all) people.