Which, again, the only meaningful difference being you cannot publish hateful content with the OGL but you can with CC. Is that your objection?
Mod Note
Keep chasing the "gotcha" and you are apt to find yourself out of the race.
Which, again, the only meaningful difference being you cannot publish hateful content with the OGL but you can with CC. Is that your objection?
Dragonborn are included in the new 1.2. The only difference between 1.0a for dragonborn, and 1.2, is you could not distribute racist or otherwise hateful content with it. Is that your objection?
A mod warning was giving on this topic. Let's drop it.So, if you don’t like OGL 1.2, it must because you want “hateful” content.
I’m not falling for WotC gaslighting the D&D community. Hard pass.
There is no reason that, if in 2035 something that was OK in 2020 is viewed as hateful, the OGL wouldn't restrict it.I can understand the part about to nothing of hateful speech, but here we can't agree about the limits. For example the vampires from Ixalan setting wear helms as the morrion used by the Spanish conquerors. Then I can say a story where the villains are ersatz of Spanish conquerors are promoting the Hispanophobia and the black legend against the Spanish empire. Not everybody would agree, of course, but here we have enough troubles and a pain in the neck. Or a story set in Ravenloft where the antagonist is a "dark sinnister" style cardenal Richelieu with dark powers. Then other could say if the evil character was based in the leader or founder of a Protestant sect then that wouldn't be OK. Double standards, to use to different sticks to measure? I feel seriously offended with the image of the Vatican church in the rpg 7th Sea. Those tropes aren't only annoying, but potentially dangerous.
Something allowed in 2020 could be offensive for the generation of 2035. Let's remember for example now in the current movies the characters shouldn't be smokers, but this was normal in older productions from previous decades.
And the entertaiment industry should worry about to be enough ideologically neutral. One thing is to promote ethical values as the respect for the human dignity to stop bigotry, and an other different thing is to use the speculative fiction for propaganda in the cultural war.
While I very much appreciate the humor (albeit with some chagrin at how applicable it is), we are getting a chance to address these concerns. We can, both publicly and privately, tell WotC that them being the sole arbiter of such things is not acceptable for a variety of reasons. Further, we can push for just that little bit more to be put into the Creative Commons, so that it no longer matters what WotC chooses to do or what hypothetical dark futures, be they abusive or absent (e.g. WotC collapses and the rights go into copyright hell)--I don't begrudge WotC seeking to protect stuff like spells (a lot of those are pretty clearly tied to D&D specifically, such as the "named wizard" spells), monsters (many of which were Product Identity under OGL 1.0a), and cultural/setting details. Having a clear "safe haven" for the really ultra-fundamental stuff, though, one that is genuinely and permanently free of the fear that WotC could bring suit that a little publisher could never afford to defend even if they'd almost certainly win, would be enough of an olive branch that I could accept some of the other terms.My chief objection … my two chief objections ... my three chief objections:
1) It revokes 1.0a and allows only SRD 5.1. In other words, it bans new content for 3e, 3.5e, PF1, and anything else built on OGL 1.0a, probably including OSR variants and smaller games. 3.5e is my favorite edition, so they are banning content for me.
2) They are gaslighting the D&D community, setting us up to pretend this is gamergate. “We’re only against them because we’re hateful” is the spin they’re planning. You saw it already in this thread. Like the NFT thing, it’s a red herring.
3) The precedents of they can change it at will is set. This is the lull us draft part, before the slink back and do it again part.
… and an almost fanatically devotion to supporting the 3rd party community!
We don't even need to speculate. As I said in another thread, we have examples literally right now where, in other media things, ANY depiction of LGBTQ+ characters is portrayed as being inherently obscene, corrupting the youth, etc. It doesn't take more than a couple people in leadership positions to have things suddenly take a very, very dark turn.Maybe 20 years in the future the society is more conservative.
Just to be clear: the OGL 1.2 draft does not revoke or de-authorize OGL 1.0(a). WotC is doing that under a separate action.My chief objection … my two chief objections ... my three chief objections:
1) It revokes 1.0a and allows only SRD 5.1. In other words, it bans new content for 3e, 3.5e, PF1, and anything else built on OGL 1.0a, probably including OSR variants and smaller games. 3.5e is my favorite edition, so they are banning content for me.
SRD-OGL_V5.1 said:Permission to copy, modify and distribute the files collectively known as the System Reference Document 5.1 (“SRD5”) is granted solely through the use of the Open Gaming License, Version 1.0a.